Jump to content

Burningbeard80

Member
  • Content count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Burningbeard80

  • Rank
    Squad Leader
  1. Why chat texts too small ?

    He does make a valid point to be honest. It's not something absolutely critical, but it could be useful. Sometimes team chat is beneficial for stuff everyone needs to know but are not absolutely time critical. Being able to pass on intel to the team directly as a grunt instead of having to go through your SL is good, and takes a bit of the burden off your SL in the process, who might be coordinating a ton of other things in the middle of a firefight. For example, messages like "new enemy FOB sighted, grid F8-5-9" so that someone who is not actively engaged in combat can mark it on the map, small things like that. A slightly bigger font and a slightly longer timer before messages disappear would be all that's needed, or even better, the ability to tweak those parameters in the settings ourselves (so that everyone can adjust it according to their resolution and monitor size, instead of having the developers spend time on figuring out what's an acceptable size for all possible combinations).
  2. Easter egg in v15

    I haven't installed the public test version, but i saw someone on youtube play through it. There's a tank hovering above the ground instead of a helicopter with a rotating turret in place of the rotor, complete with fast ropes
  3. why we cant destory trees ?

    Dude, you often make good and interesting points on a lot of things (regardless if i agree or disagree with them), but your near constant hard-on against anything related to a more milsim experience or PR (you know, the game the developers came from, and the community that initially funded Squad), makes it hard to engage with your opinion sometimes. It's detracting from getting your point across and makes people want to argue with you just because you come right off the starting line as having an axe to grind. Squad is a game that was touted as a successor to PR from the get go and that's how it secured funding to even become something in the first place. Like it or not, that's how it is. Sure, there's a wider community now and that's good, but these founder guys are still around and they made the game possible in the first place, so their opinions matter just like the rest of the guys. I'd say they matter just a little bit more actually, because without them we'd have neither a game nor a community (who do you think taught the first influx of players how to play the game, and we went from there?). You don't have to agree with certain opinions, but they don't have to agree with you either. We're all just throwing ideas out here and seeing what the developers will do with them, we're not actually in the studio making design decisions with them. Well, let them ex-PR guys throw around some ideas too. P.S. Nothing personal, just making an observation. In fact, i've had quite a few discussions with you and you bring interesting stuff to the table a lot of times. It's just the nature of the medium (written speech through an anonymous venue) that can make it easy to come off as more aggressive than we intend to a lot of times (which is why i'm adding this edit as well). o7
  4. I would personally prefer simulating it as internal loads and not sling-loads, simply because of how unrealistic it would be to make combat insertions with a sling-load. If you've ever tried it in a flight simulator like X-plane or DCS, you know how slow you have to take it when doing even simple things, like transitioning from hover to forward flight and back. It's a royal pain in the butt and you have to take things so slow and smooth, it feels like trying to be a neurosurgeon. Choppers are very maneuverable machines (they are unstable by nature after all), as long as you don't have a few hundred kilos in a pendulum swinging below you, then it's like you're walking on eggshells and trying not to break them . Seeing choppers with sling loads making fast insertions and hot drops would be immersion breaking. I think that having supply crates carried internally and being able to be dropped would be a good compromise between gameplay and realism, while maintaining immersion to an acceptable standard. It was like that in Project Reality (the BF2 mod that Squad is based on), so i expect it will be pretty similar for Squad too. Back then we only had ammo supplies that were dropped in visible crates from logis and helicopters. It was all or nothing as it was dropped in a crate, so you couldn't unload partial supplies like we do now. We didn't have construction points, but the crates themselves counted as construction points and there were small and large crates. The way it worked was that 2 small crates = 1 large crate. You needed 2 small or 1 large to build a FOB and they had to be up to a specific distance from where you tried to place the FOB (similar to the recently introduced mechanic in Squad that needs a logi within 30 meters). To place static weapon emplacements (like mortars and HMGs), you needed another large crate nearby (or 2 small ones). All of the above was in order to build stuff. To change kits and rearm you had to stand close to the crates. To rearm static weapon emplacements you had to have riflemen drop their ammo bags on them and then go back to the crate to pick up more. You didn't get any visual indication of remaining ammo in the crate. I i think there was a slight graphics change when it was depleted past a certain percentage, and depleted crates had a dismantling animation, at which point you knew you needed a logi run. So, it was more or less similar to the buildable ammo crates and other mechanics we have in Squad, but with a few differences. What i liked better in PR was that you could destroy supplies with explosives and disable/disorganize FOBs before pushing them (eg, some HE rounds from an APC, a grenadier or mortars to destroy the enemy supply crates), and the more realistic resupply of static weapons with ammo bags (as opposed to Squad's "there are all these invisible ammo supplies around you and they magically get into the HMG whenever you need to reload" mechanic). What i like better in Squad is that we get an exact readout of the supplies remaining, we can load supplies back up into a truck and we can make customized and partial loads/unloads (eg, load 30% build and 70% ammo, or take building supplies from your last FOB so you can make the next one faster). I think a combination of the two systems would offer the best flexibility and also give rise to more tactical shennanigans, which is good for gameplay. They will probably have to add crates anyway with helicopters, because the whole point of them is to get in, drop and get out fast. If they have to stick around unloading like a logi, we'll have a lot of dead choppers initially, and they'll only be used for the safest of runs in the long run. Having the ability to do both methods would be nice. You could load/unload like we do now when the situation is safe, but you could also dump everything in a single crate out the back of the logi or the helicopter's side door when you are in danger, and get out as fast as you can. As for AA, we had heat seeking missiles in Project Reality, both as static weapons built on FOBs and as a separate AA kit you could pick (similar to LAT, but against helicopters). The aircraft also had countermeasure flares they could launch. Things were very simplified, with most systems being a hybrid of how heat seekers and radar guided missiles work in reality. Basically, the missiles were heat seeking and the countermeasures were heat based (we had flares but not chaff), but you could hear a lock warning tone in your aircraft when they were locking you, which only happens with radar guided weapons. In reality heat seekers are passive, they don't emit anything for your defensive systems to pick up on and warn you. The most that can be done (and it's not unusual for helicopters, since they fly lower and slower than other aircraft and they need the extra bit of warning) is to have a different sensor warn you when a missile has been launched and is approaching you. The difference between game and reality is that in the game you knew you were about to be locked and could act in advance (which is only possible with radar guided missiles), while in reality you would get the warning only after the heat seeking missile had already been launched against you (so you have less time to react). However, i don't know if they'll add AA missiles immediately to Squad. in PR we needed them because apart from purely transports, there were also attack helicopters and attack jets that could wipe a full squad in a single pass. So, if you were playing on an open, desert map (similar to Tallil for example), your SL might ask for a guy to take the AA kit, just so you could scare some of them away while you cross 600 meters of open desert with no cover from enemy aircraft. For Squad, i suspect they'll first wait and see how balanced it is with the current weapons. After all, the ZSU is an AA gun and we get it on both static and vehicle mounted versions (militia trucks, MTLB) for irregular factions. For the regular armies, they have fast firing APCs/IFVs and guided anti-tank missiles, which both work wonders against low and slow helicopters in a hover. But if they prove to not be enough, i expect them to add AA missiles for the ground troops and countermeasures for the pilots to use. It will be interesting nevertheless and i honestly can't wait.
  5. Server filters

    There are some filters on the bottom of the screen (for example, i have set it to not show empty servers). As for the bug that messes up the display, there is a very simple workaround. If you sort servers by clicking on a column (let's say we sort by players) and the browser is still refreshing, you get this bug where new entries are overlaid on top of previous ones as the display is still updating. However, if you click on the column name again it realigns everything correctly (until more entries appear). What i usually do is let it refresh for a while and see if there is a server with reasonable ping and enough players on to join while it's updating. If i don't find anything interesting in those first few seconds, i let it complete refreshing (you can tell because the scroll bar changes in size while it is still updating and new entries are coming into the list) and then sort by players. I start going down the list from most to least players and join depending on player count, ping and previous experience of specific servers. After a while you tend to remember servers where you had good games and their prime timezones, so you can skip all that. You just let it refresh and then use the textbox at the bottom of the display to search for specific servers.
  6. Logistics Buff

    It's a multi-faceted problem to be honest. I would say "helicopters will solve this" and to a large extent they might, but it needs people to commit. Some people will need to learn to fly, do it consistently and help teach others. Some other people will need to realize that you can't just take any high value asset for your mainly infantry squad, and leave the choppers to the guys who know how to fly. And some other people will have to enforce all that through server rules and administration. But honestly, we never had this problem in Project Reality because we didn't need constant logi runs ever. What usually happened was that we got a logi at the start of the round, built a FOB and leave the logi there. The FOB was not on the actual capture point but somewhere you could more or less hide it, so most of the times we didn't have abandoned logis in hard to reach places either. Need a logi after a squad wipe? Tell your fellow SLs "hey, i need the logi by the FOB in that grid", spawn there and take it, it's done. The more visible kind of FOBs that attracted attention were the mortar/superfobs to provide overwatch on a crucial part of the map. In that case you knew you'd be discovered and you would just fight it out and defend it, because maintaining presence on that part of the map and denying movement to the enemy was important (as a side note, yes, there was often enough tactical benefit to defend some place outside an objective). Also, people knew not to all spawn there and waste time, only the squad manning the emplacements would use that FOB and provide covering fire to the rest of the team so they could advance to the objectives. So, FOBs were either hidden/sneaky ones some distance away from the flags to help the team spawn and push (this was the majority of cases), or mortar/emplacement FOBs (0-2 per match, depending on the map). In the first case, you left the logi there until you needed it again to make another FOB. In the second case, you might have a logi doing the occasional run but most of the time FOBs with weapon emplacements were supplied by air. In both cases, a lot of the times the FOBs were also initially created via airdrops (take a chopper to a place, drop supplies, build FOB, move out, chopper will resupply as needed). The people doing the resupplying were doing that same thing for the entire round without complaints, not only because flying is fun and you get useful stuff done for the team. It was also because they could count on the rest of the team to not have a random infantry squad take their chopper if they went down and had to wait for it to respawn, plus nobody would complain at them to "play the damn objective" when they sat idle at main for 5 minutes waiting for it to respawn. And if assets were taken, the admins were on the case. What this little description might tell you is that it's not just a case of adjusting game mechanics. Players need to adapt and actually cooperate in a way that makes sense for the overall objective of the round. If the average Joe who flips the currently underpowered logis with 3000 supplies, wants to do his own thing and only perceives the game as his own personal playground with no regard for the fun of others doesn't change his mentality, he'll still be a problem even after we get improved vehicle mechanics, unflippable logis with 10000 supplies and helicopters. He will still be able to take a logi solo and rush the middle flag only to lose it or do the same with a chopper, there will still be SLs that will approve vehicles for him and there will still be servers with casual asset rules. And no amount of buffing logistics will fix that, but it will seriously unbalance gameplay whenever you get a team that operates closer to the paradigm i described above (ie, they will steamroll the opposition), because a guy who doesn't understand the importance of positioning and logistics is still a liability to the team, regardless of the amount of supplies carried (if you die, it doesn't matter if your logi carries 3k or 10k, you delivered zero in both cases). But a guy who knows those things is getting a huge advantage, because he used to be able to move 3k of supplies and he can now consistently move 10k per run. Mind you, i'm not saying "this is the one true way to play the game, all should conform to my vision", let server owners decide what kind of communities and players they want to attract and decide their own rules. All i'm saying is that playing a certain way manifests certain symptoms of frustration sometimes, and people should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their choices. We can play with somewhat stricter rules and in return have the benefit of better organization, or we can play casually and have the occasional frustration as the tradeoff for being able to do our own thing pretty much every round. But we can't have it both ways in the same round.
  7. why we cant destory trees ?

    The increased player cap is quite important to run public matches with some sense of organisation. Currently, people make a fuss whenever someone is not playing the objective directly, and that drives gameplay down a very predictable and repeated method of doing things. With 20 extra people you can have a lot more possibilities because people can now apply indirect strategies in addition to the usual "spawn, rush the point, kill, die" meatgrinder. You can do a lot with 20 extra guys, like having a dedicated mortar squad of 6 guys, dedicated helicopter (1-3 people), tank and apc squads (3 people per piece of armor). Assuming 2 tanks and 2 APCs/IFVs, that's a total of 19 to 21 people for the squads i just mentioned, depending on if the chopper squad also includes gunners (2 per chopper in addition to the pilot) or not. So, you get these and only these people to man only those assets for the duration of the map (no more taking whatever vehicle you want as an infantry squad, some are claimed by specialised squads), and still have as many infantry squads as you have now to actively play the objectives, while the other ones support them in ways that don't require to stack as many bodies as possible within a few square meters. You can have 3 or even 6 guys taking a 20 minute break in main while they wait for the tanks to respawn and they won't get yelled at, because the importance of always having someone to man the tanks when they are available is more than the disadvantage of a few guys hanging around main waiting for asset respawn. With the current numbers you cannot do that, because 6 guys is 2/3 of an infantry squad and on average each team has space for just 4-5 full squads.
  8. Logistics Buff

    HE and ATGMs are indeed a bit light on lethality. The range on ATGMs though is a gameplay/balance thing. Same as Project Reality with air assets, most of those had air to ground missiles but their range was nowhere near to real, otherwise an attack chopper would be able to shoot from one end of the map to the other without ever leaving main. Still, it's a bad practice when trying to balance things out to make changes that affect more than one different thing. This doesn't go for gaming only, it's a computer programming axiom more or less. Ideally, each change should be isolated to affect one aspect of the final software and if that's not possible, you go for the change that affects the least amount of things (unless you know how it will affect them, they are similar in nature, and the change is desirable). The more different aspect it affects, the harder it is to test and the more likely to break something else down the line. In any case, i wouldn't expect them to buff logi capacity with helicopters around the corner, because that would make them obsolete before even getting introduced. The way it usually worked is that they had comparable capacities, with logis being the choice for sneaking around with less chance of detection, while helicopters were for doing things fast. If one of the two has a lot of capacity than the other, then it automatically becomes the preferred method of deployment, and it's even heavier of a blow for team to lose one. They just have to adjust vehicle performance and add some more transportation options spawning at main on big maps really. It's been tried and tested before and it works well, no need to reinvent the wheel and spend 2-3 patch cycles refining and fine tuning it.
  9. Logistics Buff

    I agree with the buff on power, since it's pretty much common knowledge that all vehicles unde-rperform in that regard. I would disagree with the increased carrying capacity though, because it has the potential to seriously unbalance smaller maps. For example, i could just load half and half, slap a mortar/emplacement fob down near the middle of the map, then make a single logi run with all 10k ammo, for a total of 15000 ammo. Then, just keep spamming mortars and ATGMs all over the map for the entire duration of the match, without having to ever resupply, cutting off the enemy team completely from advancing past the middle flag. The way you could easily solve resupply issues for big maps without unbalancing smaller ones is to just have more vehicles spawning at main in bigger maps. I remember a 4x4 km map in Project Reality where one team had 3-4 humvees, 4 transport trucks, 3-4 logis and 2 choppers. You could also have vehicles that would spawn with a delay (same as tanks do in various maps in Squad), but the most interesting one was that on that map we also had a logi that didn't respawn. The idea was to help players at the start of the round and easily get them out of main and into the field, but then you had to be slightly more careful and the pacing was slower, because some the assets only had 1 "life".
  10. Upcoming and Veteran SL Rating

    The reason this is so hard to do is because a lot of things in the game are very situational, and that goes for every role and not just SLs. You can be a marksman alone on a hill and be great help to your squad and even entire team by spotting enemy movement, warning your squad before they walk into an ambush, correcting mortar fire and placing down fireteam markers that your SL uses to update the map for the entire team. You can be the same team-oriented player on the same hill the next day and be completely worthless, because the enemy team has a couple of SLs that know enemy spotters will get on that hill, they tell their team and they avoid moving in areas where you can spot them, so you end up spending the entire match looking at empty fields and doing nothing. This is why scores are not indicative of actual performance and it's the same reason it's so hard to come up with an accurate statistic tracking system. You could do all kinds of seemingly useful stuff like tracking tanks, spotting enemies, building FOBs, placing rallies, laying down smoke mortars, doing logi runs and so on, but how useful your actions are (if any) is not only determined by the kind of action. It's mostly determined by positioning and timing, and there is no automated way to get data on that, because what is good positioning and timing on a match today is not good on a match on the same map a couple of days later. It all depends on what every single one of the other players is doing. Sure, i did a logi run, but did i supply the guys under attack on our besieged back cap, or did i just drop it all on a worthless FOB away from everything else? And if did supply the correct FOB, shouldn't i gain and lose more points for doing it under fire with enemies in close proximity, depending on if i succeeded or if i lost the logi (extra reward and punishment for higher risk)? The game currently has no way of knowing all that and even if it did, it would need some kind of machine learning framework to be able to deduce when and where each action is useful, depending on what is actually happening during the match. To achieve an indication of actual performance, you would need a full blown in-game API to help you "record" the entire match in an easy to parse and manipulate dataset format, so that you could then feed that into an AI/data analysis toolkit. It would be an interesting side project for modders, but it's actually 2 entire additional pieces of software, so i doubt we'd see anything like that from OWI until the game is in its final form. In order for such a system to be even slightly accurate and useful, it will have to be quite complex. And to be honest, it would probably be more useful as an after action reporting tool, because running all that on top of the game on the same server as a live match would get dicey in terms of performance.
  11. Weapon Attachments - Classes are awful

    Attachments are cool and all, but i think the reason they didn't go that route is because they are not aiming for a more complete milsim experience like ArmA, so they compromise with predefined roles. Plus, having a backpack with a bunch of spare gear to change sights and grips on the go all game (like i see in many ArmA videos) is equally unrealistic for the average foot soldier. This stuff may work that way in high-budget professional armies or special forces, but the game doesn't only model those. It also models irregular factions and will probably model even more factions as time goes by. In many armies you just get what the game shows, a standard issue equipment kit with standard issue rifles, even ammo quantities. So, in the interest of balance, i doubt they would just give us free reign even if attachments were provided. They would have limits per squad too (so someone might still snag 2 different optics to mount on rails and leave you with iron sights) and then they'd also have to increase the staging phase duration to give people time to prepare their kit customisation. I'm not against it, but there are trade-offs. The more in-depth we go with certain stuff, the more drawn out rounds will become. I'm fine with it to be honest, but then a lot of people who complain about the lack of cool guns to use, would probably complain that the game is suddenly too slow for them. With this i'm not pointing a finger at you necessarily, i'm just coming from years of high-complexity gaming (flight simulators, the EvE online MMO game, etc) and have seen similar things happen there. The community asks for something and doesn't understand the consequences of the change, they get their wishes granted, then they often end up whining because the changes they asked for affect gameplay in a way they don't like and didn't foresee
  12. Mute Button

    True, but it's still one more thing for the SL to keep track of. I'd rather not have to deal with it and add another layer of things to micromanage. Ideally, i'd like to see an overhaul of FOB and radio mechanics. It's immersion breaking to see a bunch of buildings disappear simply because a radio went down to a small explosion 100 meters away. What is it, magic? Make FOBs work similar to Project Reality and then you need buddies to assault them, this means less need for lone wolfing and no need for muting anything. Also problem solved. There's more than one ways to skin a cat
  13. I wouldn't call dumb something that has proven utility. In Project Reality when medics and the SL went down everyone did the following: Clear the immediate area of hostiles. Find the medic and get his kit. Revive the SL so he can drop a new rally. Revive the medic and give him back his kit, if he's not dead for good already. Same for crucial roles such as LAT/HAT when you had enemy armor bearing down on your position. In Squad we can't swap kits, and that's the reason for the "everyone can revive" mechanic in the first place. Mind you, i'm not saying Squad should implement the old system verbatim. Like i already said in my previous reply, there is potential for misuse and it needs disciplined players to work well. And the average public server player is far less disciplined in Squad, so maybe the current system is better for the available playerbase. But i won't knock the mechanic simply because players cannot be trusted to make good use of it.
  14. Performance recommended system requirements

    Personally, i play with Vsync on and the fps locked to 30. Why that number? Well, you just divide your monitor's refresh rate. I have a 60Hz monitor, so i just divide that by 2. If i had a 144Hz monitor i would limit my fps to 144/2 = 72 or 144/3 = 48. Sure, more fps does make for smoother viewing, but anything above 30 is playable for 99% of games. The trick is not to have maximum frames at all times but steady frames per second, because it's mostly the change in fps that your eyes perceive as annoying. If you limit fps you give your card the time to "breathe" and render everything consistently. If you let it try for maximum FPS all the time, there often come times where your card is already loaded down when trying to reach 60 or above, rendering a scene at maximum detail where almost nothing happens . Then, a vehicle rolls around the corner, starts shooting and gets a rocket to the face. Suddenly your card has to render a whole lot of extra stuff and process effects and explosions, but it was already close to its maximum load, so the fps goes down. With the fps limiter, your card would be working let's say at 50% before the vehicle came in, so it would have enough of a margin to process the extra stuff when the need arises and keep the fps steady in the process. My video card is below minimum specs (Nvidia 750 with just 1 GB of vram) and i only have 8GB of ram, yet i can play just fine by doing that. It's very stable and i get no stutters at all.
  15. why we cant destory trees ?

    Just because something can be made doesn't mean it will in the end. I'm not familiar with coding in UE4, but generally speaking whenever a feature is proposed or thought of for any piece of software, there is also a gain vs risk assessment going on: Is it doable? If yes, how? Is it maintainable in the long run? Is it acceptable performance-wise? How long will it take and how much will it cost? Is there another feature that would give greater benefits to the software if the time and money was spent on that instead? Maybe they can do it but it might have performance implications, or siphon resources away from other goals like 100 players servers and helicopters. Who knows? I'm not saying i wouldn't like it, i'd love it if we got some kind of destructible terrain (hello, this is mortar squad, say goodbye to your cover ), but as with any piece of software something's got to give at some point and compromises have to be made.
×