Jump to content

Globul Potato

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Globul Potato

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. FTL being able to place a rally

    And thats how i see it too. BUT people tend to be too clingy to the old Project Reality ideas, which, dont get me wrong, were good, but they were good for their own times and BF2 engine limitations. Might not be so great anymore. Squad is not PR. It is its own thing that kind of inspires from it. the high downtime when things go tits up and the high reliance on squad leader competence makes the matches be either great or awfull, no "meh" in between, and at the early stages of getting to know the game, its not really dependant from you, just from being lucky to get into a good squad. That randomnes drives away a lot of people which could with time become good players, people to boost servers and well, sales.
  2. FTL being able to place a rally

    Ah, yes. the COD Kiddies. ad Hitlerum of Squad forums. Thats why we can't discuss things like normal people.
  3. FTL being able to place a rally

    Fine, then i see that problem. Better? As for the implied Rally being down- no, its you who assumes it. I never wrote anything about it. Sure, the orginal Buddy Rally had/has this as a requirement, but this system doesn't. Its simply not necessary. Let FTL make a rally point in the name of SL. Thats it. Thats all it is. As for the things you write later- We're back again at the good old "punishing people for playing the game". You have this crazy idea that every SL is *** Winters reincarnated, and if not, he should be. That is a hyperbole, but let me ask you a question- why? Why make things harder than they should be just for the sake of your ego and "Git Gud" mentality. Currently there are 2 outcomes to a RP being overrun. 1. SL is alive- He and one other guy create a new RP/ fall back enough to create another RP because the enemy is close 2. SL is dead- The whole squad has to spawn in the FOB or Main. Only thing this adds is a 3rd outcome 3- SL is Dead- FTL and 3 squadmembers create a new RP/ fall back enough to create another RP because the enemy is close BUT he has to have 3 guys next to him, and there can't be any enemy close. You can still wipe out a squad, its just a bit harder to do. The main thing is- combat is closer and downtime is reduced. I agree with "hardcore" ideas when they have a realistic reason behind them, but the arbitrary idea that this one magical squad member is vital to the squads survival is not one of them. Its a leftover from pre Fireteam days. Thats all it is. In reality when SL dies or is injured he is replaced by the next in line. In squad its not possible because of game mechanics. What i'm trying to do is bringing game mechanics a bit closer to real life. You may say its not needed, or its not a problem. I just find it a logical step forward, and thats what we should want- logical gameplay, not artificial arbitrary rules for the sake of rules. EDIT. Huh. Guess the auto censorship doesn't like the shortened name of Richard Winters.
  4. Just hear me out before unleashing the standard "Nyet. Meta is fine" The buddy rally created a major butth...... Was not received well. Why? Because it allowed the whole team to magically teleport from one part of the map to the other in a much more efficient way than current FOB does. It allowed bypassing the defenses. It wasn't liked for that reason. What was its goal? To cut back on the downtime in the case of the squad being left without the SL being able to create a RP, resulting with spliting the squad into the ones that are still alive, and the reinforcements running/driving from the much further placed FOB, or even the Main Base. It was put there to make the consequences of SL death less severe. So, since the Buddy Rally is definitelly a bad attempt to solve that problem, how can we do it in a different way? Quite simple. Make FTLs also be able to place the rally point. Singular Rally point for the whole squad, replacing the old one, The same as SL, following the same rules (2.5 minute cooldown, 3 squadmates, etc.) with the addition of: -SL has to approve it in the same way as vehicle claim (maybe added automatical map marker for where the FTL is putting it) If he approves, the deuce is dropped. He can be dead, he can be alive, doesn't matter. It just creates an option of sending the FTL to do it instead of SL. The time counter only starts AFTER the approval, if SL doesn't give the permission, there's no rally point and there's no cooldown. That way SL still has the full control over where they are put, and too eager yet incompetent FTLs dont hinder him. -Only the first 2 (or 1, or 1 for regular forces and 2 for insurgents, whichever version you find the best) FTLs can do that. Why? so we don't end up with "4 FTL meta", like we did with "give it to AT for rangefinding" for some time. On top of that, its supposed to be a helping hand for the SL, not an overpowered "I can always choose 4 places to set the rally" That way, when the SL dies the whole squad is not completely screwed, yet a major component of the squad has to get somewhere to put a rally there. There's no zipping around, other than FOB, which is much harder to set up.
  5. Alpha 13 Public Test, Round 1

    Yeah, i dont know what i was thinking trying to defend Buddy Rally. Silly me. Disregard my opinion, Have your precious hiking/offroad sim. Sometimes i wonder how many people here play on Euro public "nation hodgepodge" servers, outside of closed off friends squads. Because you definitelly have some high Teamwork standards that i very rarely see. Usually quarter of the squad buggers off to do their own thing, quarter doesn't even have a mic and sports some cyrilic nick, and your 9 man squad is just 4 guys that sort of listen.
  6. Alpha 13 Public Test, Round 1

    A lot of negativity on the Buddy Rally system, so, to hope they don't remove it- a voice FOR it. Its a force multiplyer. With vehicles around infantry is outclassed and bigger maps are unsuited for them. How often the game turns into die- walk 2km, die again? It lessens the downtime for infantry and makes it look like you're against a larger force than it really is. To use vehicles you have to drag them all the way from main, but once one squad slips through defenses, a whole platoon might appear there. They upped the scale of engagement by reducing the time that is spent just on traversing the map. Imho, a good addition. Might get really OP when helicopters come though. For the people saying its unrealistic- so what? Respawn already is unrealistic. Play one life operations if you want realism. It should be represented in the gameplay itself, The way weapons, vehicles and characters behave. Not in walking or driving for 10 minutes becouse you died. If anything, current system is more against realism than the new one , as you get a bunch of spread around squads and stragglers while in reality a platoon would stick together. So this might actually be a move FOR realism, not against it. We're not doing a company, or battalion level battle becouse there's enough respawns to field one. We're doing a dwindling platoon engagement over and over and over again with disorganized people trickling in from their various spawns. Its devised to bring units closer together and not have them spread around entire map in various phases of getting back into the fight. More time actually trying to outmaneuver the enemy and do something that matters, less time wasted on getting there, which hardly never is coordinated. More playing the game, less getting to play the game. Sure, You're supposed to drive the infantry forward in APCs or trucks, but that really only works in the initial deployment. Imagine being the APC crew- Match started, You drove them where they wanted. Some of them died. Then what? You go back and do a taxi for the entire match bringing fresh spawns, or do you support the infantry that already is there like you should? In real world this wouldn't be a problem becouse the force gets there at once, and fights together, but here it is because of constant reinforcements. I think people tend to forget that the organized single clan squads are not the main players of Squad. Randoms are. The other day I spent few minutes yelling at a running squad to get into my BTR so i can drive them where they want to go. You think they did? All those high teamplay concepts require exactly that- high teamplay. Which usually is lacking. As for those that say FOBs are useles now- No, they're not. Its just that there's too much reliance on them now. Think about it- to use the buddy rally SL has to be dead, that means there's a high probability he is going to be the first spawn in there, thats sticking the squad together. "Blueberries" cant use it becouse they're not assigned to any squad. Lone wolfing squad members also have no say as it is SL who decides if to create one. FOB on the other hand- Anyone can spawn anytime, plus the most important thing that is mostly overlooked- It can have defenses and stationary weapons. Rally points can't. Now we just use FOBs as hidden forward spawns, and they're so precious in that role that they're not fulfilling their real role- to be a hard nut to crack for the attacker/supplement the attack. Its just making spawning harder for the sake of making spawning harder. Sure, Rally Points are ridiculously easy to set, but they are easy to get rid of as well. Or, at least, they should be easy to get rid of. What i think should happen is increasing the overrun radius. That way pushing back against the attacker has some merit and is much more realistic than the meta gaming FOB hunts. To summarise- Buddy Rally is a good thing. It gives much more flexibility and mobility, makes cooperation easier, and cuts back on all those "running through the open field like an idiot" hours. Respawn is already unrealistic. Just go with it. That way we may get some more realistic stamina and moving speeds because making clicks on foot to get to the battle itself is less of a requirement. As for getting rid of perma death- im against it for the same reasons people above might be, but i have an idea to improve it- Instead of having it set to arbitrary 60 seconds, make it go after you're back to full health- so You're propperly taken care of by a medic, not just reviewed. This way it makes more sense and makes playing medic smart more important instead of "who can bring more people up as fast as he can" Waiting for respawn in case of permadeath should also be reduced by the time you were waiting for a medic when you were wounded- that way it encourages waiting without needlessly punishing.
  7. In here https://joinsquad.com/alpha-13-test-gameplay-changes/ There's this part- Any of you played Arma 3 with ACE mod? If not, then they already solved your problem. Make the ping area based. Like you're pointing out something to someone on a physical map. Make it so only poeople in 2 (or 3, or whatever) meter radius from you can see what you're pointing at on the map. And now there's no guys pinging stuff from 2 clicks, but you also don't need to give someone full grids when standing right next to them. Problem? Solution. Also, if You're interested, They also have a simmiliar system with in game pointing. According to ACE Team- Its better to simply show it. (WARNING, LOUD in 0:37. I couldn't find a better video) If you dont want giant floating circles in your UI, there's an even simpler idea. Make an animation that points a finger in the dirrection of your invisible crosshair and make it a hold action (so you dont have to constantly repeat it) And thats it. Of course, you can do the same by just saying "its where i'm aiming at" "or direction 230", sure. But its a neat little immersion thing for guiding fire and creating memes.
  8. Body Armor

    I don't think there's need to increase stamina costs, its already at the right place for such an encumbered soldier and it mostly just iritates rather than being useful or realistic. If anything, there should be a slight decrease for insurgents. There's another thing though- soldiers are trained. All those 5am PT runs have to do something, CO's wouldn't do it to them just to piss them off, right? right? militia, insurgents, all various freedom fighters- more often than not they're much weaker. To simply put it- i wouldn't touch the stamina and leave it as it is. eventually lower the stamina cost for irregulars if you really want to balance the armor out, but i'm not super convinced about that.
  9. Body Armor

    He kind of does have a point, but so does the rest and is unnecesarily angry about it. Its all about balance. The simplest way to utilise the "armor factor" is reducing damage to area covered by it. -50% on the chest and -25% (becouse helmets are weaker) to the head. I don't know though how Squad hitboxes work. is the helmet and the face considered one thing? Is upper torso-lower torso diferentiated? If the whole head is one thing simply don't touch it, same with torso- scale the numbers down. I pulled them out of thin air anyway. That way Soldiers survive a bit more, but are no bullet sponges. Is it realistic? No. but its close enough to make a difference. If you wan't anything more than that then it would require building an entire system of penetration, plate fragility, internal shock damage, medical rework... yeah, there's no way squad does that, and i doubt any game actually can unless its built around it from the very beginning. WWIII apparently has that and it apparently works, so does tarkov, so, it can be done. More or less. But then we come back to the main problem. One side has it, other does not- In the state that the squad is currently in- No. Don't touch it. It would break the game. If we wan't to see body armor represented then there would be a need for many assymetrical tweaks. Things that are not hard to do, but basically rework the whole side gameplay feel. What chages? Here they are (Self advertising like a shameless wh*re) If the devs managed to do at least part of it, or something simmiliar then yes, I'd love to see some, even the simplest form of body armor, it would go along perfectly with the theme- faster, squishier and more maneuvreable insurgents vs more durable but restricted conventional forces. And it would work in AAS just fine as well, just needs a different mindset when playing ins. They wouldn't be outright weaker, they would just be different.
  10. Its not different, it just makes it easier and more of a common practice. Which it shouldn't be. Why? Becouse i find it too gimmicky. I believe that dedicated scout/AT/whatever squads are a nice thing, but not in the scale Squad is currently at, which is platoon level. How does a propper, "military like" well disciplined 40v40 looks like? 3-4 infantry/mech infantry squads and rest split among the specialized roles- tanks, logistics, mortars etc. 1 stays to defend, 2 attack. 4th (if it exists) maneouvers where its needed the most. Its the bare minimum. You need at least 3 working regular infantry squads to do anything against a competent enemy, and the fact that you often dont is becosue enemy is not competent. Superfobbing far behind the lines, wandering off into flanks so deap that they are pointless, or simply just not coordinating and contributing. If you add more squads that are dedicated for solely one thing- scouting, tank hunting etc, You get forces stretched too thin. Specialized units really only exist on the company and up level, but since we'll never get that, as it would require tripling the player's cap, we should aim at the "Strenghtened platoon" level. Which is somewhere in 50v50-60v60 if we'll be nice. If we get to that player count then yes, It can work. But not right now. I'd like to see specialized squads, especially MG/Support squads, (Which exist on platoon level) but there has to be some leash put on them, otherwise, as i said- there's the "early bird" effect on the slots. How i think it should look like- SL chooses what kind of squad he wants by a scroll menu when creating the squad and that changes the slots available for players that join him.- Fire Support squad is the only one that can get 3x MG, but its not written in stone that he MUST have 3 MG's, Players can also take 2xMG, HAT and a Marksman or any other combination that is available to them. Though he doesn't have access to Crewmen, AR's Scouts, etc, and there can only be two (so one guy can't just be quicker, get few guys and close the squad hogging it for himself) of each one of those per side. It also has the "early bird" syndrome, becouse who are the first two guys to create a Scout Squads are the only ones that have scout squads, but it doesn't take anything from regular units. They operate just like they do now, specialist squad taken kits wouldn't count into the general pool. Maybe some changes like taking away MG, HAT (if we get the Javelin) from them and limiting crewmen to 3(so they can only operate one vehicle), but they generally stay the same. You might notice that this hypothetical special squad has 4 specialist slots. Thats becouse in this concept the "3 specialist rule" would be turned off for the specialist squads, and instead rely on maximum amount of any particular kit in squad and exclusive relation (you can have X or Y but not both at the same time) to eachother. also no need to have x amount of members to have access to y amount of slots- Everything is available from the start, but the SL can only take the SL kit, so there's no squad creation so you can have the cool thing. Why there is no number of members restriction? To not waste players that can be used in regular squads, just bare minimum to be effective/ SL being able to cap the number of guys he wants in his squad instead of just being able to close it and open hoping for the best (Another idea i just thought of). TO not make them OP and unrealistic they would only be able to take the few predestined kits that also have a max cap, so you dont get 9 MGs or 9 HATs. Armoured squads get crewmen only, but they're the only ones that can get inside tanks, same with pilots when we get helicopters- only heli squads can have them, but they can't have anything else. Why is that? to shift the focus from inner squad cooperation to inter squad cooperation and solidify the structure, so there are no squads where the SL and 5 other guys are in tanks, and there are 3 infantrymen that just do their own thing. "Regular" Squads still have access to crewmen though, so they can use IFV's and APC's. Thats becosue they actually do work with infantry while tanks (and helis in future) are more of their own thing. Scout squads get a higher number of scouts and in regular armies- more LATs, Marksmen and people with opitcs (maybe binos just for them, but it would require adding specialized items to people in specialized units, and thats a completely another story) but no heavy equipment and no crewmen. Its just a rough draft right now, it would require a lot of min maxing. This idea would require insane amounts of meddling in game mechanics though, and definitelly shouldnt be even touched until we get 50v50 servers. I know its not cohesive, and very rambly. It was direct though to keyborard translation. I was making it up as i was writting it. Sorry.
  11. Then you'll just have the "early bird gets the cheese" mentality, first two squads get all specialists, the last squad gets a "thanks for participation" letter and riflemen. You're thinking from squad leaders point, but from a selfish view. "I want an anti tank squad" means that every other squad has no anti armor defense. You want it, but you dont consider that other squads wont be able to have it. Its like that with some slots now, But only with the very specialized ones, and the 3 specialists limit is there exactly for that reason- so you dont hog the gear and have a realistic(ish) looking squad structure. Also, it might be a total waste of slots. The fact that someone wants a specialized squad doesn't mean that he's going to be effective with it, or useful at all. And more often than not it would result in some gimicky lone squad screwing around that doesn't harm, but definitelly doesn't contribute like a regular squad would. Thats why squads are standarized but with some leeway- so you can customize, but without being able to hog all the nice things for yourself and to keep the composition at least semi realisitc.
  12. Partial credit to mr. AllezVites from Reddit for coming up with the 6 man squad idea. I just reworked it a bit and am shamelessly stealing parts of his post. Here's the orginal. https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/aiy51k/insurgents_new_specialist_squad/ im transfering it here in hope that someone will consider this, or at least it will make him think. Here's what Allez Vites wrote We've all discussed faction balance in terms of vehicles, emplacements, and fortifications. This comes up when discussing Insurgents as well, but, when it comes to them, I think we're better off addressing team structure and squad roles. Cap squads to 6 players: Capping squads to 6 players increases the total number of squads. Currently, a faction is capped at 4 full squads and 1 auxiliary squad. If this cap is introduced, the total number of full squads is increased to 6 + 1 auxiliary squad. With 6 squads, you now have more rallies that can be placed which leads to more agile movement strategies - I think this should keep traditional factions on their toes - leveraging asymmetrical combat and guerrilla tactics... Im snipping the rest in which he talks about specialist squads becouse i believe it would require too much meddling in the game and too much complication to a very little gain and as such, would make the whole concept unappealing and would sink it.Here's My own idea of additional changes to insurgents to improve His idea. reduce the number of specialist slots from 3 to 2(Or not, this one can be forgotten to buff insurgents up a bit) do a max number of all specialist slots (Not counting leadership and crewpeople) per side like with HATs and MG's . Example (might be higher for any particular one, might be lower) 4 LATs, 4 ARs, 4 GLs, etc. Thats there to counter every squad just getting AT and AR while completely neglecting other slots which would result in over saturation of the battlefield with few particular kits. That way you get some more variety/you simulate the lesser logistics and having to fight with what you have while still having those things on the team level in a similar number that you would have while operating in 9 man squads. Nerf max medics per squad to 1. Why? to simulate worse medical support and personal protection (Helmets, Vests and stuff). To simply put it- rebels are more likely to die when being fired at than soldiers. This is reduced a bit by the fact of having more squads and and everyone with a bandage being able to revive. Having the ability to field 2 medics in a single squad and thus higher survivability in a firefight would be one of the regular military's perks. So far all im doing is taking things away from insurgents that will screw the balance too much, right? right. But to counter that i propose to give them this one major advantage 4.Raise the number of rallies per squad from 1 to 2. That paired with having more smaller squads means that they can basically come from anywhere all the time. Hunting down one rally basically just closes off one venue of attack for 6 men instead of pushing 9 people all the way to main base/some fob few clicks away. It means sustained pressure and the need for regular army to do proper sweeps and maintaining perimeter if they want to secure an area for good. It comes at a price though- play too aggressively and you'll burn through your tickets like HMMWV burns through fuel. If you feel its too OP you might increase the overrun radius to go along with the "more agile but more fragile" theme. Do all of that and voila- more squishable, lesser equiped but more agile and hard to completely get rid off like cockroaches faction versus a robust modern military. Going in hard but encumbered by its might. You get asymmetrical warfare for the lowest work to gain ratio possible. Main idea behind those changes- insurgents/militia are not regular army. Right now they're structured like one with having worse equipment (and some toys like IEDs) It just makes them a worse regular army. What im proposing is an entirely different way of fighting that makes it its own unique faction with their own set of advantages and disadgantages. What im proposing is playing guerilla like guerilla- outmaneuver, strike where it hurts and **** off before the entire might of western civilization blows you to kingdom come.
  13. The problem- Playing with your lads is undisputably better than with random squad members. They might not know the language, not follow orders, they would prefer to rush when you try to backcap, etc, etc. Point is- Squad is more fun and you're more effective with people you know. But its unnecessary hard to get together into one squad. Balancing means that usually half of you is on one side, half on the other and you have to play for the enemy while you wait till someone leaves so you can switch teams. Its a pain in the ass. This was talked about before but i think My way is more resonable than premade squad joining, squad prefixes joining and others. Plus the idea is more fleshed out. I actually thought about it instead of just going "Make it so i can play with my lads easier. Do it, no matter how" Solution- Searching for a server as a group. How i imagine it should look like? 1. You and your lads turn on Squad (Obviously) 2. There's an additional tab in the main menu- "Create Group"- One of you clicks it 3. He then invites the other ones via the Steam friends list. Simmiliar to how CSGO operates. 4. When the group is created and everyone is in- He then proceeds to search for a server for all of you through the regular search engine 5a) He finds a server with enough room for all of you. He clicks it, it automatically joins the whole group 5b) He finds a server with not enough room for all of you. He clicks it, he gets the prompt- "Server has not enough room for the whole group. 4 of you will be transfered to the queue. Continue? Yes/No " (That explains itself, if there's not enough room, the "overfill" will simply be transfered to queue. Determined by the order of jojning group) 6. You enter the server. From here its the same as now. One of you creates a squad, the rest joins him, you play and have fun. I dont want any premade squads, or forcing the group to join on the same side. Its simply not needed. Only change that has to be made at this point is laxing the balancing a bit. Squad is a tactical game, there's really no clear advatage when you have 35 or 40 players on your side. I think it should be moved from difference of 2 men to 4. Even if you dont want to implement "Group joining", balancing change would greatly improve the organsed group experience. Why not difference of 9, or no balancing at all? Becouse while a pain in the ass, it still is needed and i find 4-5 to be the golden number- not enough to make a big difference, enough to be a self sustainable fireteam. It would greatly improve quality of living when you want to play with the lads. If you think about it, it could even improve the whole squad experience- more cohesive units with better cooperation between its members equal generally better gameplay. It wouldnt hurt to try, only thing you're changing for those that dont want to use it is a bit higher balance window than before. (I made an account here just to write this) Regards, Globul Potato.