Jump to content

Gopblin

Member
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gopblin

  • Rank
    Squad Leader

Profile Information

  1. Yeah, I feel you man. I'm a pretty good SL, and about 20% of games I get salt from some other SL for placing too many/too few FOBs, in locations he doesn't like, or being out of position for whatever reason. I usually explain why I'm doing what I'm going in a fairly calm manner (its usually because I understand Squad meta better than Captain Hotshot, or because my squad members are new). About 75% of the time this gets them to stop screaming. The other 25%, I just kinda have to ignore them. Sometimes other SLs pitch in and tell em to shut up.
  2. AT mines still bugged, its infuriating. AFAIK they work on insurgent techies, but not any of the regular faction trucks and jeeps
  3. So you want 8 minutes of that instead of 2?
  4. I assume what we see in video is the flare in the back of missile, not the motor?
  5. How many of those soldiers do you think are out there? TOWs cost as much as a Ferrari and it isn't exactly common to fire one, much less at a fast-moving target Moreover, as explained above, firing a TOW IRL is much more complex than ingame because game doesn't represent a multitude of things that affect ATGM's flight. If you want TOW operation to be "realistic" so badly, advocate for wire breaking on terrain and air currents affecting missile flight, which are a much bigger deal than response time
  6. Regardless of real response time of TOW IRL, there are a ton of issues with ATGM shooting that the devs aren't representing ingame, such as the necessity to fly the missile high above ground to avoid catching the guide wire on trees/powerlines, then bring it down when close to target. Not to mention the "wobbly" nature of the missile flight itself. There is a reason people have to take extensive training to be good ATGM operators. Then there's game balance concerns, competently used TOWs already being hugely OP with the current small maps. The last thing we need is to make them even more foolproof (not that they need it, anyone with 3 min practice on shooting range can oneshot vehicles up to ~1600 m fairly reliably)
  7. 1. Really? Go in the server browser and check the percentage of populated servers that are running Conquest maps. How high is it? 5%? 3%? Less? Does that count as "a lot" in your book? 2. Insurgency mode requires attackers to actually play objectives and move around. It's the same gameplay you want, except way less demanding. And at least half the time, they fail to do it, which is why the game mode isn't popular. Heck, pretty often the INS fail to spawn and defend the newly created cache because they're all crowded on the other one. This, and the lack of popularity of Conquest, shows that "mobile" gameplay you want will not work with the current playerbase 3. The idea of making the game even less accessible to weed out the newbies might have some merit from a player's standpoint, but it definitely won't make sense to the devs. Their goal isn't to cater to the hardcore playerbase, but to make a game that a large audience can enjoy. If you want something tailored to a tight community of hardcore players, go play a mod... or pay the dev's salaries yourself for the next 3 years while they make the game for you. Sorry, but that's capitalism. 4. As to your question - see above. I'm just as frustrated as you by the ineptitude of a large chunk of the playerbase, but I understand that any suggested changes to the meta must take that into account. Otherwise Squad will probably die within the year because new ppl won't buy the game. Maybe if Squad also adds tools that help new players learn the game better (such as much better tutorials, or a Friends/"communicate outside of of matches"/"join-server-together" system that it so desperately needs), then severely limiting spawn options would be more feasible
  8. Good idea, but unrealistic due to the sorry state of the playerbase. People can't even handle Conquest or Insurgency game modes, and you expect them to keep moving along with fluid spawns? What will actually happen is that two-thirds of the squads will be wandering around at irrelevant locations and the rest will be constantly running APCs from Main to the contended flag, then abandoning them in the field I agree that the mechanics could do with some tweaking, but the changes have to be completely idiot-proof. It's very easy to do more harm than good, and looks like the devs understand this very well.
  9. And how often do you go through that many rounds in a single life? Squad doesn't really have suppression and most cover isn't penetrable, so spraying without seeing a target is 99% of time counterproductive. So one must shoot directly at enemies and not waste ammo. 8 mags should be enough to score at least 10 kills, probably more. Yeah other LMGs have more ammo but 90% of the time you won't live long enough to even go through the ammo on the British LMG, it's a fairly marginal difference. As for grenadier, once again, you can still shoot people with your rifle. I don't know why you don't acknowledge that fact. It's basically Scoped Rifleman and Grenadier rolled into one class.
  10. Dude, you made multiple topics about this on reddit and here. Brits have 5 optics and 2 scoped LMGs per squad same as other factions. Moreover squads will generally have one scoped weapon + GL + LAT, and British GL has optics, so they usually have one MORE scoped weapon in their squad than other factions. Let it go.
  11. Well yeah, I suspect the devs just gave the Brits a third MG to avoid inevitable whine about "why don't Brits have a GPMG waaaa" It doesn't actually affect balance in a meaningful way regardless, because its not like any sane Brit squad would have three scoped MGs and Marksman instead of one or two scoped MGs, Marksman, scoped grenadier and/or LAT So basically if they get a scoped GPMG it won't change much except I suspect some INS players will whine because it makes Brits look stronger in theory
  12. Yup, game became darker for me too. Have to crank gamma all the way up just to have a medium level of brightness
  13. Brits have optics on: SL, LMG (better than other factions Scoped Rifleman), Marksman, LMG, Grenadier Since a common lineup for FS roles is LAT + GL + 1 optic, it means Brits effectively have 1 more optic role than other factions, and their Scoped Rifleman is an LMG You're objectively wrong man, let it go
  14. Ticket Bleed

    This. The big downside is that the new players would be permanently confused.
  15. There are two issues I see regarding changes in balance over the past year or so 1) Yeah, INS Scout has been somewhat buffed, and so was the SPG-9. However, they lost the 2nd LAT in their squads, which was their answer to enemy armor and optics (why snipe someone when you could just launch a frag rocket in their rough direction and still kill them?), and accounted for a significant portion of their firepower. OTOH, regular factions got more scoped weapon kits (up to 6 per squad from 3, while INS/MIL still have 2), better vehicles with better armor, scopes on emplacements, more ammo for grenadier, much easier time killing techies and their crew with small arms, and even goddamn ATGMs. Not to mention the meta changes have benefited the regulars, e.g. in v10 on Basra if US was slow in taking Outskirts and Refinery they could bleed too many tix and lose. Now, they won't lose anything and will gain much more tix for each flag they take, making it much easier for US to take all INS flags before running out of tix. So on the face of it, INS are now considerably weaker by comparison. They're also considerably less fun to play, because unless one is a Scout, LAT, or one of few optics INS, you are basically at a severe disadvantage fighting enemy infantry who can see far better than you (and, less importantly, also have guns with ~3 times higher DPS due to higher ROF + less recoil + flatter trajectory + lower damage falloff). 2) HOWEVER, all of the above is mitigated by the clueless nature of pub players. On pub servers, regular factions tend to spread out less, move less in combat due to reliance on optics and sniping, and use fewer transport vehicles. This means that INS have greater mobility and greater map presence that the regulars, and often take flags from under their noses. This may sound like "true Asymmetrical Warfare Simulator" has been created, but in fact it's more of a Tactical Ineptitude Simulator. tl;dr: As long as both factions are competent, irregulars are very underpowered. In pub play, you could arm one team with nothing but sharp sticks and they'll still win 30% of the time because the outcome of pub games is generally not decided by weapons, but by which team has 3 competent people who will actually play objectives.
×