Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lightly_Salted

  1. Visibility at distance is a problem for me

    Problem is, you save up all that money to buy a 4k monitor only to realise you'll need to head out and buy a 1080ti to run the game at any decent scale
  2. 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.

    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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. M4 Red Dot Sight is terrible since v10

    Huh, interesting to know, thanks!
  11. 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).
  12. M110 - Awfully weak

    Nope. I'm not saying it's bad. Finally got hold of the Marksmen kit for myself yesterday, the US one. Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to take two hits to kill someone unless it's a headshot, obviously, but let's be real, hitting headshots on moving targets at 200+ meters isn't particularly easy if we take into account drop and weapon sway. The round the M110 fires is a 7.62x51mm NATO, doing a bit of research that round is travelling at almost 800 m/s, and it is a 175gr round. The M4, which also takes two rounds to kill someone in-game, fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round, of which is travelling at 910 m/s due to it being a much smaller and lighter round, indicated by the fact that it is only a mere 62gr. That's 113gr lighter than the 7.62 round the M110 fires, i'm not going to do the maths but you can imagine the difference in energy those rounds will have, the 7.62 clearly being much, much higher. And yet it still takes two hits to down someone, even when hitting them square in the chest... Don't forget the fact that some of the targets you fight don't even wear body armour, and those that do, the 7.62x51 would just punch straight through. My point is, you want a game to be realistic in it's gunplay. You make muzzle control more player dependant, but you don't adjust the fact that if someone gets hit with a round as powerful as the one the M110 fires (Or any marksmen rifle for that matter), it's gonna put you on the floor no matter what. There is little punishment for taking a hit from any rifle in this game apart from a little screen blur, sure if you don't bandage you're pretty much dead, but there's no reduction to movement speed, or any kind of stumbling if you get hit in certain areas. I don't want to stray too far from my main topic; Why does it take a Marksmen rifle (The m110 in particular) more than one round to the chest to drop a target? And for a game hailing realism in gunplay, why have we seen no major downsides to taking a hit? I can't seem to comprehend how I slam a round from my M110 into the chest of a man for him to scurry away like someone just stepped on his toe. Or are they all using space-age level 5 ballistic kevlar robes now? UPDATE: Okay. Seems that my original opinion was quite an unpopular one. Though I guess I can compromise. As I mentioned in my last comment, due to the M110 and SVD being very similar, why not bring them up to each other? So the M110 does the same or close to the same damage as the SVD, or bump the bleed-out time to 5 seconds so the enemy does have a chance to survive, while still having the weapons as quite effective tools. P.S; Went on a bit of a tangent so i've probably missed something important. Apologies.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. It's actually nice to see people actually helping Razz instead of just ******** on him cause he's 13, that's actually great. Age doesn't matter as long as they play the game right, but at the end of the day just enjoy it man, trust me i've dropped a few teammates by accident here and there, as long as you apologise you'll be fine! It's a pretty good community we got here.
  19. M110 - Awfully weak

    I feel like the PSO-1 sight in-game is too far out from the user, making the reticule small as well as the sight picture. This is kind of what I would expect, though understandably you don't want to stick your eye too close to the sight for obvious reasons; One problem I see is that the PSO-1 is only a 4x magnification, whereas the sight the M110 has mounted is has a magnification of 6x, as stated by the devs. If they cleaned the PSO-1 reticle up a bit and made it larger for the user to actually see when lining up a shot, then it is still worthwhile. I still feel like the M110 warrants a slight damage buff closer to that of the SVD. 3 seconds to bleed out when hit with the SVD gives you very little time to bandage, chances are you're dead. Whereas as 17 seconds for the M110? They could have a coffee before worrying about bandaging themselves. I understand those figures are from V9, but it doesn't feel like much has changed. Just increase the damage, lower the bleed-out time so it's at least close to the SVD, and the targets you face actually have to bandage almost immediately after instead of going for a short jog before having to do so.
  20. M110 - Awfully weak

    Okay. Seems that my original opinion was quite an unpopular one. Though I guess I can compromise. As I mentioned in my last comment, due to the M110 and SVD being very similar, why not bring them up to each other? So the M110 does the same or close to the same damage as the SVD, or bump the bleed-out time to 5 seconds so the enemy does have a chance to survive, while still having the weapons as quite effective tools. I never stated I didn't enjoy it, the map size didn't help, I would like to try it on a larger map during a firefight to see it's true effectiveness. Just remember that this wasn't a rant, I wasn't stating it was a terrible rifle, I just thought I'd raise the idea. I'ma copy and paste my first paragraph into my original post so people see that.
  21. M110 - Awfully weak

    Done a bit of reading, and 7.62 Russian vs 7.62 NATO is... well... quite a hard one to distinguish. Ballistically, they are almost identical when using the same bullet weight, but the 7.62 NATO tends to produce the same results with a shorter barrel. The only reason I can see for the SVD having higher damage in-game is that there are very heavy 7.62x54mmR rounds available to use, however they are more regularly used as LMG rounds due to their effectiveness at range, or lack thereof, compared to their lighter rounds with penetrators or full metal jackets. Here's a snip from a website I was doing reading on, I'll add the link below as they've run the two rounds through a ballistic calculator as well. Link for the website; http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/20/modern-intermediate-full-power-calibers-018-7-62x54mmr-russian/ Point being - There shouldn't be a huge difference between the SVD and the M110 in-game, in my honest opinion (And from what I've researched) the M110 should be brought up to the standard of the SVD in-game, and definitely not the other way around.
  22. M110 - Awfully weak

    Gotta remember that the 7.62x39mm actually has less energy than a 5.56 NATO round, and only just slightly more energy than the 5.45. The 5.45 is also a lot lighter than the 5.56, and the 7.62x39mm is miles away from the 7.62 NATO in terms of velocity, weight, and the energy the round carries. This is likely why it takes 3 rounds to drop a target in-game using the AKs, because generally, their ballistics are much worse than the standard 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds. The 5.45 and 7.62x39 actually have quite comparable energy characteristics, generally the lighter rounds (In this case, the 5.45, but also the 5.56 as mentioned earlier), are designed to tumble when they come into contact with the target. They can penetrate quite a fair amount, but they lose their speed much, much faster, which is why the wound channel (In my guess, anyway) expands closer to the point of entry than the point of exit. Whereas the 7.62x39 does similar damage, the channel extends towards the exit and penetrates further through when entering as it carries it's energy further due to its weight. I would suppose the same would be said for 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, but the 7.62 NATO carries such a huge amount of energy compared to the rest that I would say chances are it does more significant damage in terms of stopping an enemy dead in its tracks rather than simply wounding them. Something which I do not think is represented properly in-game. EDIT: I want to comment on the round the SVD uses, but I don't know a huge amount about it. I'll have to do some research. I know it's rimfire, which is surprising. I didn't think rimfire rounds were still used apart from small calibres like .22
  23. How is the optimisation in v10?

    I didn't get a chance to play v10 myself (Unfortunately), so to all those who have played it, what is the optimisation like FPS wise? Does it run smoother, faster than v9? I can't wait to actually play v10, and i'm hoping FPS wont be worse so I can keep running it at decent graphics settings, because the game looks amazing, I don't want to have to drop them. Thanks
  24. How is the optimisation in v10?

    I get pretty decent FPS on Squad at the moment, however, I'm running many things quite low. I believe my GPU is bottlenecking my CPU as it's the one thing I have left to upgrade in my PC, which will hopefully be happening at the end of this month. I've had my Radeon R9 290x 4gb for a while now, and I hope to be upgrading to a GTX 1070 Ti, which will bump performance in every game I play, not just Squad. I'm looking forward to it, that's for sure.
  25. M110 - Awfully weak

    The energy the round carries may not directly correlate to knock down power, and yes the 5.56 round is designed to tumble, but you're looking at an energy difference 1,500 joules, in favour of the 7.62 round of course. The 5.56 round is designed to create a wound channel, making the wound harder to treat and in-turn causing the person to come to an unfortunate fate due to said wounds. Simply obeying physics, the energy of either round has to be dispersed into the body of the person they find their way into, not all of the energy of course as some will be wasted and the rounds might even over-penetrate, the 7.62 more likely to do this. However, it is still more likely to do more internal damage if hitting the right area (I.E the chest) due to the sheer force of impact and the energy the round carries (3,300 J) transferring into the soft tissue inside the body. The 5.56 is designed to wound and kill. The 7.62 is designed to punch through the barrier you're hiding behind and drop you there and then. EDIT: I should add, the damage done by the 5.56 round CAN be worse. I do not disagree. But you are more likely to survive it than you are a 7.62 round.