Jump to content

Gopblin

Member
  • Content count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gopblin

  • Rank
    Squad Leader

Profile Information

  1. This got over 2k views / 77 comments / 76% upvotes on Squad reddit, so I figure community wants to talk about it and I'll cross-post it. Original thread for those who want to read the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/9xel36/lets_discuss_vehicleinfantry_balance_in_v12/ ====== I'd like to hear people's opinions on the vehicle/infantry balance in V12. The community is obviously split down the middle on some V12 changes (looks like my V12 post got about 94 upvotes and 90 downvotes by now), and I personally think the biggest meta shifts were tanks, vehicle location damage, vehicle ticket costs and limited ammo. ~~~~~~ Here's why I want to focus on that in particular: I haven't seen anyone who really feels too strongly about rally wave spawning, bandage revival, increased logi capacity, role loadout interface, HAB locking, increased suppression, new map marker options, new weapons, rifleman ammo, RAAS mode or Talil map - I think the community agrees that all of these changes have been positive or at least neutral. I also don't think people notice the limited small arms ammo too much. It takes quite a while to run through a full load of ammunition, and it's relatively trivial to replenish, so the "persistent ammo" system isn't a problem. On a side note, I don't know why it's called "persistent ammo", because I thought each respawn is supposed to be a new soldier entering the fray. Do US soldiers get issued their dead comrade's weapons and ammo when joining a battle? "Sorry, last guy threw a grenade and shot 5 mags, so you'll have to make do with this". That said, I don't think players mind it. It's obviously a system that's supposed to give a moderate advantage to well-supplied squads in infantry battles, and it does that well enough. ~~~~~~ Finally, we come to the one big change that I think affected the meta the most: the quadruple nerf of infantry anti-vehicle capability in the form of: a) Introducing new very powerful vehicles (tanks, seemingly need 4+ perfectly aligned LAT hits) without introducing much for new counters b) Introducing location damage which seemingly doubles survivability of old vehicles (at least I've seen APC and shitboxes not exploding after 2-3 LAT hits, heck even logis need two LAT/HAT hits now) c) Reducing vehicle ticket costs, which enables crews to risk them a lot more (yes the respawn timers are long, which in some ways makes sense as a way of punishing the incompetent crews rather than punishing the team as a whole, but generally there's spare armored vehicles sitting around at Main) d) Severely reducing LAT ammo due to the persistent ammo system (spare me the fairytale scenarios where each LAT is followed by 2 riflemen - it never happens on pub servers, and in clan play the super-organized infantry would be facing super-organized vehicles and get roflstomped just the same) I don't think most people understand the implications of this new meta yet, but I've already seen APCs rush through enemy-held areas straight to the HAB and drop infantry in smoke for lockdown (yeah, cool but unrealistic), tanks parked in enemy-held capzones with relative impunity (see my whine here - https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/9x302w/my_take_on_v12/e9qabxa/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=joinsquad ), light armor clearing forests ahead of infantry, etc. I don't think this new meta is "unrealistic" at the mechanics level - the whole point of armored vehicles is that they're hard to kill. MBTs and even APCs have been known to remain operational after multiple LAT hits IRL. However, I think this meta is "unrealistic" in the sense that it doesn't represent the real-life proliferation of infantry AT weapons. A real infantry squad doesn't normally have 1 AT guy with 1 HEAT round, whereas in Squad this is commonplace. In fact, it seems that people start taking LAT less now, because what's the point when your chances of destroying armor are so slim? Someone on Squad forums mentioned that their Swedish infantry squad of 6 people had 2 marksmen with AT4s, 2 machinegunners, and a Carl Gustav 2-man team. Fully 4 people out of 6 were some form of AT role. I think in the near future we'll see either increased rifleman ammo (always respawn with full ammo bag, or ammo bag holds ~250 Ammo), LAW/RPG26 for Riflemen and SLs, reduced LAT ammo costs, or increased LAT ammo reserve (c'mon, it takes at least 4 perfectly aligned hits to kill a tank, and you'd be lucky to even make one!). ~~~~~ Had everyone else's experience been similar to mine? Tankers - I haven't played as tank crewman much yet, what does it feel like on your end? ~~~~~ EDIT: Added from discussion: The thing is, I think tank damage models are fine-ish. You can pen them in the rear half with LAT, and you can even severely damage the engine with a couple hits (although penetrating turret doesn't seem to do much other than decrease health). They're perhaps somewhat more durable than IRL, but it's not too bad. The problem is that IRL most infantrymen would be carrying at least LAW/RPG26 when expecting to engage tanks, also there would be way more than ~25 infantry with ~3 LAT troopers and 1 HAT fighting against 2 tanks and a number of APCs/IFVs. So a faithful modeling of weapons without a faithful modeling of tactics and numbers brings unauthentic results. Kind of like if you gave each infantryman faithfully modeled man-portable ATGMs and Javelins: yes, while those things are very effective IRL, but in order not to make infantry too OP, you also have to model their scarcity and keep game balance in mind. EDIT2: Testing vehicles on range, they seem a lot less durable than ingame. For example, logis always burn out after one LAT hit, whereas ingame it seems they always survive. Anyone else notice this? EDIT3: Another possible solution to the current imbalance is to expand the areas that can be hit to impair mobility. Currently, only directly hitting the engine itself decreases mobility. However, IRL hitting the drivetrain, gearbox, axles, or the tracks/wheels themselves would impair mobility too, not to mention hitting the driver (if we can't hit crew inside vehicles, the least OWI can do is make hitting driver's seat a mobility kill). I don't think its unreasonable, for example, for tank tracks to count as "engine hit" for mobility purposes. Obviously a tank that took two RPGs to the tracks is going to be driving very slowly. However, increased amount of mobility kills might cause an issue where a great many vehicles would be abandoned in the field, often mobility impaired and surrounded by enemy infantry. To prevent "hold enemy armor hostage" gameplay, a vehicle-respawning mechanic would be needed, but one that can not be abused. For example: 1. SL who owns vehicle can start 5-minute countdown till it explodes (simulating a friendly airstrike on the thing for example) 2. Countdown stops if friendly enters the vehicle; also possibly require the vehicle to be more than 25% damaged for this countdown to be started 3. After vehicle explodes, ticket loss and respawn timer are processed as normal ===== Best wishes, Daniel
  2. 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.
  3. AT mines still bugged, its infuriating. AFAIK they work on insurgent techies, but not any of the regular faction trucks and jeeps
  4. So you want 8 minutes of that instead of 2?
  5. I assume what we see in video is the flare in the back of missile, not the motor?
  6. 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
  7. 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)
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Yup, game became darker for me too. Have to crank gamma all the way up just to have a medium level of brightness
  14. 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
  15. Ticket Bleed

    This. The big downside is that the new players would be permanently confused.
×