Jump to content

Supply Lines

Member
  • Content count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Supply Lines

  • Rank
    Grunt
  1. Admin's abusing power

    This sort of banning is completely out of control. I think it's pretty clear that moving forward, leftists are going to infilitrate and grab for power in any place they can be petty tyrants. The only hope for the future of gaming is to use the reporting system to identify people who are easily offended and shadowban them from the list of normal servers, pumping them into a secret list of servers that contain only people who get offended easily. This is the only way to protect the community from turning into the same nonsense you get on Triple A titles. Fortunately there are many private servers out there and they don't all act like Soldiers are politically correct on the job. This is a Milsim. Rough Language SHOULD be used to motivate teammates. If you can't handle it, I heard there is a new SpongeBob game coming out... and that fits the level of maturity it takes to not be able to handle an N-Bomb. It shouldn't be a matter of warnings. If you weren't spamming it, you weren't interfering with the game. I hope the Server owner is able to sort this all out for you. For some reason people seem to think that the things people say online need to be answered for by the server owner or the game publisher. That is not the case, nor should either of these entities foolishly take legal liability or responsibility by monitoring/gatekeeping based on these things. It should be made clear they cannot control customers, nor do they wish to. The only things that should be done should be secret and undetectable to shuffle the perpetually discontent into their own little echo chamber... which they will turn the game into for everyone, if you let them. Rather than gatekeeping, you give the ones who identify as sensitive their own bubble. Server owners can select the level of sensitivity so you can make layers of shadow sorting. On the flip side, someone who is particularly foul mouthed or constantly getting reported gets upticked back into normal servers and you build a profile about a persons behaviors vs. their reporting that teaches you to ignore them totally. You protect your product from the consumer, not the consumer from other consumers. You should endeavor to sell video games to EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY the ones that scare you the most because video games sublimate violent desires and keep those behaviors out of the public square. At worst, people being disagreeable in a video game won't affect how they behave in real life. However, it's more likely to make them chill out or even fear the consequences in real life far more... provided they aren't already insane. That's just how I see it. I don't typically curse... but I take comfort knowing if I wanted to, I could without some obscene and exaggerated consequence such as the one listed here.
  2. Make a Good Game Better (WiP)

    What do you think of when you think of Pay 2 Win Cellphone games? That's where most of the major corporations are right now... drooling over the monetization schemes and low labor requirements. The most proactively productive cell phone game companies are CHINESE for goodness sakes. The American companies all want to do the least and reap the most profit... many of these executives are jealous of the small companies that got started with the cell phone game app market. I expect the features to decrease with time unless independent companies can show that details, features, and game depth are what consumers actually want. It's not even about casual gaming anymore, because there was ALWAYS room for Casuals. It's about making gamers into mindless consumers that constantly feed and never question. Where is the art? Where is the Civilization? Where is the sublimation of taboo desires for violence that computer games were MADE for? You have people crying about violence against animals in video games.... which is emotionally retarded... when the industry could slowly erode the very existence of actual Dogfighting if someone made a highly detailed Dogfighting game. Could you imagine anything more beautiful? Except they are too busy looking at bottom lines and stock options to take that sort of visionary risk. Squad's got the most advanced voice chat system out there. If you have been following the news, that's the next on the chopping block for politically incorrect features. It matters. This company should know it HAS to make a stand if it wants to make real art, a REAL Milsim.
  3. Make a Good Game Better (WiP)

    As a fresh set of eyes on the situation, I have seen both sides of the PR argument in forum and spoken in game. In the end it's important to remember that PR didn't sustain, in the end. There was a golden snapshot of time when the rules achieved the desired effect, but the player base evolves with those rules. There are always unintended consequences, and as a result new changes are made to keep the game alive and active... to draw in new blood. Unfortunately, those changes can alienate the player base... or the graphics and limitations of the engine eventually just fall behind. In a certain way, you need to build in a rotating meta, just to keep the vets on their toes. It doesn't have to be a predictable rotation, but you want to keep the player base unbalanced enough that new players can grasp the game and find ways to fall in love with it. That of course is a whole different level of development. In the meantime Squad has devs working hard to fix all the seemingly boring but CRUCIAL elements of the game so that it's smoother. I have no doubt they are discussing what needs to happen to ensure the game as things move forward... the biggest reason for the slowdown is because they have to balance between feature implementation, quashing bugs, and seeing where the last feature alterations really put them. All vocal sides agree they don't like the Run and Gun aspects that have grown into the game. Hell, the guy who got me in the game told me the same stuff basically. I was fascinated by the idea of logistics and a more in depth base building and signed right up. You build a chain of command and a system of specialization... every player has roles they fit into to achieve a larger goal. It's not just a respawn meatgrinder. Maybe you are right. Squad might be over before it even really began. That would be very sad however.. and if we really think about it a deep hit to the morale and motivation of anyone working on more realistic Milsims. All these little details don't stop the triple A titles from rushing a completely castrated product to the market and then banning anyone who says something politically incorrect in chat/voice at the drop of the hat. They have completely destroyed competitive play and have a long term goal to see the gaming industry turned it into a disgusting positive affirmation algorithm that's barely any different from social media. A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss. I am not saying you have to be a mindless Fanboy... but at some point the dreamers have to draw a line in the sand and make a stand to fight for their vision. Otherwise, the masses will always erode any brainchild completely smooth. Take Bethesda... the company has achieved shocking lows and stunning implementations of backwardly crappy features over and over again. Yet the Fans came in and modded the games to the top shelf over and over. Most of us in the forums.... we aren't modders. Most of the people who play the game, they won't even look at the forums. However, if the right mindset exists in the forums, it will foster the minds of those who can and do mod.... so they can take the game where it needs to be. It's a specialization of fandom and zealotry for a game that needs a commitment not to surrender. I am not making a game, so any of these ideas can be reposted in other places where people are trying to find solutions to the current FPS culture to create a new and DEEP mindset. Sometimes, people need to see it in action before they can visualize the consequences anyway. The other thing is I can't think of every aspect and someone might see an idea and realize a better variation of it. Build that momentum up... and even if it doesn't land here on Squad, someone can always roll it over to another Milsim trying to shake the industry up with something more interesting than Fortnight Battle Royale.
  4. Make a Good Game Better (WiP)

    I figured that would be the case, but I didn't see it mentioned in this topic.... so you need things to go more extreme. Some of what you are fighting is the VERY CULTURE of FPS games that has been created by games like COD that reward players for Killstreaks. Some of what you are fighting is the very nature of a game which rewards behaviors that would never function in reality. Of course, the final thing you have to combat is something that doesn't exist in reality... which is a players ability to understand the bigger picture. (Soldiers are trained to follow orders and not question orders that aren't obviously unethical or traitorous. Or just trained to follow orders. Players are not soldiers, although you want to reward them for behaving as such.) Vs. Modern Culture of FPS- Killstreaks are their OWN reward. Giving players unrealistic rewards for going on a killing spree is nonsense. You clearly benefit the team when you eliminate the enemy. What needs to be rewarded is following orders, staying alive, saving teammates, and performing the unpopular jobs (Digging, Logistics, Guarding FOBs.) How MUCH these things need to be rewarded can vary and needs to be discussed in greater detail... but HOW to reward them is the question. I sense people are not up for character cosmetics, would be opposed to a prestige leveling system, and would object to anything that opens the door to microtransactions. In a way, that brings us to the next part Vs. Nature of Games - Perhaps the solution is buried in kit distribution. Right now, squads have limits on the number of special kits that is reflected in how many people they have in the squad and how many people are in the faction... but I have heard people discussing the idea of specialized squads (Which alter distribution for focused tasks), which could be compounded with a concept of varied rewards for completing certain task types with a personal player soldier credit for buying into specialized kits. In particular the Squad Leader/Commander Kits are fairly restricted right now, but you could open them up to more variety if players have to spend Soldier Credits to buy into more unique leader kits that might let them operate equipment not available to leads right now. As long as you maintain role limits with squad size, you won't have players forming Commando Squads just to do as they please... a commander that wants access to special toys needs to maintain a functional squad and have been playing the game as a soldier long enough to earn the credits and KNOW better than ignoring the team. Vs. the time scale of reality and escaping the fantasy of the game - It all boils down to keeping track of the things that aren't just important to winning, but important to making this an ACTUAL Milsim. Make the players THINK about the things real soldiers and commanders have to consider in battle. As it stands, players only have to factor in "Supplies" for building and "Ammo" for firing weapons. Maybe that needs to change and "Food/Medicine" needs to be a subtle resource, especially for the forces that aren't playing on home ground. Force Projection can be affected by lack of essential resources... and while this sort of thing is typically reserved for a Strategic map, there are interesting ways you could alter combat so that it becomes a tactical issue. Realism in a video game is subjective, because the game, whatever the intention is, is STILL a piece of artwork. You want to instill the FEELING of military combat into a player... the Command Structure, the Duty, the action, the lulls, the goals. This might result in something absurd being necessary, like tying running speed and jump height to control of Water Resources on Desert Maps. I don't know if this is too big an ask or suggestion. I have seen people discussing dissatisfaction in the running and jumping mechanics for varied reasons. Perhaps the solution isn't to alter or eliminate the objectional parts, but put qualifiers/conditions that need to be met. Right now, the game revolves around Primary objectives..... but you can alter all sorts of game play parameters with secondary objectives. I can think of many things that can be altered/added based on this sort of thing. Insurgent/Militia Factions can have secondary objectives that affect weapon jams and vehicle speeds/engine condition... where the better funded Military factions or invading factions need to focus on food and water for troop condition. All factions could benefit from Communication stations as secondary objectives... and that rolls right into my last idea set. You want players not hauling off to remote areas of the map that are unscouted/under enemy control? Punish people who don't have a scout kit, a closeby partner, or vehicle with more NOTICIBLE things than ticket loss. You can STILL punish the team for people going AWOL and there is a very REAL military consequence to it that you can reflect in the game. The first and most stupid simple solution is to have a growing bullet storm that punishes players... sort of like the way the map shrinks in battle royal games. The bullet storm could be somewhat in ratio with how many tickets the opposing team has left. This would mean at the start of the game, hauling off without an objective or into enemy controlled areas will get you sniped... not by a player, but by the system. If you scale it to remaining tickets in the opposing force, this goes down to taking suppressive fire randomly, then winnows out as the enemy loses force projection. This would put a HARD punishment on people who run and gun. You could even rob people too far from their own faction members or territory the ability to "Give up" forcing them to sit through the whole bleed out. Any of this is bound to be intensely controversial. The second option is one where you add in the ability to gain intel from enemy troops. I know there has been excitement about the ability to drag bodies... particularly enemy bodies. If there was a holding cell Squad Leaders could have built, it would be awesome to drag enemy soldiers to it for instant intelligence reveal. It could be the location of a FOB, Squad Lead, active mines, Or vehicle.... and would automatically post to the map in a special color to denote captured intelligence. The further evolution of this idea would be that lone wolves that get gunned down automatically give intel to the enemy. It's a fantastic and realistic punishment for Rambo-style play, if warped to cartoonish levels to function in game. However, I have no idea what it would take to implement each or any of these ideas. They just seem like they might reinforce what people are seeking in a Milsim game culture right now.
  5. Make a Good Game Better (WiP)

    If you want to stop "Lone Wolf" play, you can always make it so that anyone IN a squad loses 2 tickets when they die if they aren't either with the squad, within a wider range of the squad captain, on the active objective, or in range of one of the team FOBs. You can also make it so they can't get any bleed out time either. That way it's harder to mark enemies on the map if they were a solo Fireteam. Another thing to consider is ammo supplies. Lone wolves going out fully kitted up, but then not having to restock when they respawn? I can guarantee commanders and squad leaders would make sure everyone has at least a buddy before they roll out and away from the Squad. Logistics is a critical part of the game. While the enemy can't currently use your vehicles, weapons, or ammo that you drop... punishing the team for people who get killed alone and in the middle of nowhere is sure to change attitudes and approaches. Isn't a sniper supposed to have a spotter anyway? This way, if they are both downed, they get their bleed out and respawn without costing a total rearm fee. I wouldn't punish the masses that didn't join a squad as hard, since the game lets people be mass grunts. I suppose the Commander has general orders he can issue the grunts, perhaps they would have a wider range of roam/tactical choice. It would create a distinction for people who participate in specialty squads. Of course, some of these things might cause drastic changes, so you'd have to test the hell out of them.
  6. Factions You Would Like To Play As Or Against

    I like the vague Insurgent/Militia/Seperatist factions. In that vein, I was thinking it would be really cool to see a Narco Cartel faction. The drug trade in South America is no joke, and the CIA even trained the Cartel operating out of Mexico. If you search Narcotanks, you will find a variety of fascinating improvised vehicles that could be added for such a faction. I imagine they would mostly use trendy guns, like Uzis and such. If you did start doing South American maps and adding Cartel-inspired Insurgents, Argentina would be a really solid bet for a South American Military to add. You have their ongoing beef with Britain you can play off as well.
×