Jump to content

TheGent

Member
  • Content count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheGent

  • Rank
    Platoon Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

611 profile views
  1. Communities opinion on VOIP Mute

    Thinking a lack of a mute solves any sort of problem is an absolute fallacy. People who don't want to work with the team don't need a mute to do so. Some servers aren't run with an iron fist, and maybe you just don't appreciate that guy spamming the "America, Fuck Yeah!" song over local voip as much as everyone else. The answer to that disagreement shouldn't be to leave the server. Leaving a mute out of the game only enables harassment and puts way too much reliance on admins/SLs to both act at all and to have an identical opinion to the players of what is and is not acceptable. Some servers will allow micspam, excessive vulgarity, etc, and a players only recourse will be to interrupt their fun to find a new server. Not all mutes will affect chain of command or teamplay; muting someone you find annoying in another squad for instance doesn't often affect teamwork in the slightest. Furthermore, people who express their opinion on how someone is annoying them will be more likely to receive harassment from that player in return, and have no way other than hoping on admin intervention to solve. Forcing admins to investigate local voip and waiting to catch the offender to harass the player again for proof is slow and impractical. No mute is a bad idea. Focus instead on providing tools for non-admins to reduce the impact of players with undesirable behavior.
  2. Ranger weekend AK bananza!

    I definitely felt something was off, especially in the mostly consistent differences in kill-scores between INS and US teams, despite all other things being seemingly equal. Unfortunately I only got to really play maybe 4 rounds with never more than 18 players, so it was tough to really gauge, but I did have that feeling at the end of the weekend. Happy to be a good little guinea pig for you, though
  3. ... *violently clears throat in the devs directions*
  4. Realistic Air Vehicle Crashes...

    No no no mon ami, part of the beauty of PR and with any luck Squad is that these events just happen; the game doesn't tell you to go be a part of it, you do it because you owe those guys and you're helping your team by doing so!~(... Having mechanics that let you "secure" a destroyed vehicle and gain some small bonus like a faster respawn of the helicopter might be fine, though I am unsure if such an incentive is even needed, and I have a hard time coming up with a plausible mechanic for it.)
  5. June 2015

    If some breakthrough happens that allows the scopes to render, we might see them make a return. However, there isn't really a group of people who can run it; even the prototypical implementation of it was extremely low resolution and framerate, and still caused a significant performance impact. Many of these games that do have render-to-texture optics have much smaller battlefields, with "fog of war" and not a lot of world detail to allow for them to perform, but the same cannot be said for Squad; massive maps, with high/infinite view distance, and lots of detail in certain areas means that this game will likely have a much higher performance cost. It's just not plausible right now. Maybe the Unreal Engine updates will make some great optimizations that allow for it to make a return, maybe DX12 will have some sort of impact... but right now we don't and can't know. Yes, it's super cool, and a lot of us wish it had worked out, but it's really not something feasible right now.
  6. Oh, how I wish this was the case with the detractors of the STHUD-style radar.
  7. Kickstarter DONE!

    Ugh... So did everyone else.
  8. Discussing admin behaviour

    It wasn't because of the ruleset that TG failed it's second coming; TG had lost a lot of its main playerbase after they took down the server the first time. Without the core community it had an extremely tough time getting population for people to actually play a game; it suffers the same problem every other server sitting in the PR server member with 0 players: nobody wants to join a server with nothing to do.The rules had nothing to do with it whatsoever. I completely disagree that the current community couldn't handle different rules around asset claiming. The reason most servers do it is because it did seem like a reasonable rule at first and simply because they have for a long, long time. HOG for instance has had that rule since at least 0.6; to them "don't fix what ain't broke" seems like a reasonable proposition. Meanwhile these servers have some of the least teamwork in PR's history; not entirely or even mainly due to the asset name rule, but I believe it has a small part in creating a poor atmosphere. Yeah there's going to be times where people clamour over themselves to get to their asset, sure. However, the reason I make specific mention is that on these servers the squad rush causes the creation of the infantry squads to be delayed until after all of the asset squads are created. I wish I could explain why this seems to happen more on squad-name servers, but it seems that it puts more emphasis on asset squads so I have too often seen them flood the squad panel, and only after the "losing" squads disband or join the squad that "won" do infantry squads slowly trickle in.It also causes the necessity of the "no squads before X time" rules, because they want to give people a fair chance at getting assets. A side effect of this, outside of more emphasis on asset grabbing, is that squads have less time to coordinate. Especially on servers where the squad timer is 1:30, you have 30 seconds of asset shuffle, almost a minute of squads being filled and coordinating what kits and where to spawn, and it doesn't leave much time to coordinate with the rest of the team as to who should be doing what. Without these rules, anyone can create their squad at any time, and so you get plenty of time to organize, and people worry less about snagging the assets. I am not against assets being held in reserve; it is a legitimate strategy... But I don't think the APC squad leader is always the soundest of strategic mind to make the call; I have seen maps with >4 APCs where there are only 2 active apcs in the designated squad; they have their backups, and even if the team needs the support and trans if they lock that squad then there's a bunch of excess apcs that aren't in use.So yes it is possible that you have the inverse problem where all of them get wasted by non-dedicated squads... But the commander can control this and wasteful, non-cooperative uses of these apcs can be punished. Its not perfect, no, but for the most part they're above teamkilling for assets in main, and that's really all I was referencing there.
  9. Discussing admin behaviour

    Everything devolves into pure anarchy! Just kidding. We have a relatively mature community, and a strong admin presence. TacticalGamer had run this way for years without major incident. There was also a fallback rule at TG that gave the commander the authority to assign assets. If people are getting fussy, all it takes is someone to step up and lay down the law. Side benefit that it encourages people to be commander outside of just area attacks. Anarchy, I tells ya! It's extremely rare to ever see more than 2 groups get fussy over assets. For APCs and Tanks specifically, there are often a few of them on the map, and people don't often try to create a new squad to compete with the APC/Tank squad that already has members; they'll just try to join the other one before it gets filled. As such, a majority of the time there will be very little bickering over ground assets. Similarly, maps with a lot of CAS craft generally congregate to one squad. The rule TG chose was first come first serve, so whoever got in the driver seat first wins. Sucks to be 3rd crew. And of course, should chaos really erupt over limited assets, the commander has true authority to assign assets how he or she so choses, and that includes removing use of an asset from a squad he/she deems irresponsible. Squad naming rule does not solve or prevent this problem. Blatant wasting of assets and not working with the team can and has been enforced independent of the fact that they rightfully have the asset. And that's great; however mech inf is one of many "creative" and viable squad compositions. Making specific exceptions as certain configurations become somehow more acceptable isn't a particularly practical strategy. I have had reasonable success in the past with an AirCav configuration, using a dedicated small trans chopper with side mounted MGs; all but the pilot and a crew chief manning the side gun can dismount and the helo can patrol/scout from the air. (Of course, one should be respectful of their teams limited resources and not take one a few trans choppers, especially on a layout/team strategy that will prevent it from being practical; but there are times when it does work!)
  10. Unlikely for infantry. As far as I am aware you don't get the luxury of picking an ammo type as a grunt; you get standard issue rounds and matching tracers, and that's it. Vehicles, however, are pretty much guaranteed to have separate ammunition types, just as it was with PR.
  11. Discussing admin behaviour

    No, it is one of the worst rules in PR servers today. It encourages the rush to create the first named squad; in all of these servers infantry squads tend to not be made until the assets are all taken. It also encourages hoarding where not necessary; a map with 3+ apcs all too often ends up with an apc squad locked at 4 players. Admins defend it with claims of not wasting all the assets at once, and this leaves no room for any other squads to utilize the asset (even with permission from the other squad; these admins will very often punish without investigating). One of the trends upon the introduction of 8 man squads was having a mech infantry squad that filled their own APC with 6 dismounts; it made for a great combination, a dedicated transport and fire support element with direct comms, and it was all around beneficial to gameplay. Again, the squad naming rule comes in and stomps its big ugly feet all over a creative, realistic, and beneficial tactic. The squad naming rule is the absolute worst rule common in PR servers, disguised as being beneficial. It's a secret leech on the community.
  12. Squad Status Color

    Both. When you create a squad, it is open and anyone can join. The squad leader can at any point lock the squad, and only people he directly invites can join.
  13. Discussing admin behaviour

    The popular US servers in PR as of right now are some of the worst in a long time in regards to admins and teamwork. IIRC it was mentioned that at least early on that servers would need to get a license from the dev team to run a public server like with PR, so they would potentially hold the power over these admins... However, it doesn't seem like it would be all that practical for the dev team to spend their time investigating reports of abuse. I think that the best approach would be to encourage rules and admin strategies that promote a specific atmosphere in Squad servers, and have players vote with their feet by joining servers with good rules, good admins, and good teamwork. (Let's all start by avoiding servers that enforce the squad name rule, please.)
  14. Countering Streaming?

    If you're only posting in this thread to tell OP to stop streaming, or to show your disgust at the practice of streaming, please stop posting. Whether you like it or not, streaming is a phenomena that is going to come to Squad in some form whether you like it or not, and it can attract players to games they otherwise might never have tried. Let's try to keep the brain power in this thread devoted towards actually finding ways to make streaming possible without the downsides of hurting the gameplay/community. Shouting about how much you hate streamers isn't going to get us anywhere.
  15. Official Squad Rules Server

    CR8Z, I've been thinking about this too ever since that admin nearly kicked us for that APC thing. I don't really know if this is the best way to go about it though... TG has said they're coming back and there's damn good reason why everyone who used to play there can't stop talking about it to this day; and I think a significant part of that was actually their ruleset. Sure, they had a good backing community of teamwork oriented folks but the rules never hampered unique tactics/strategies, and rarely was someone punished for working with the team and having a good time. The problem is that so many servers in PR have the most restrictive ruleset (I'm looking at you, squad naming rules) and admins enforcing these silly rules with iron fists disrupts gameplay and reduces interest for victims who weren't actually doing anything disruptive or disrespectful. These servers have to learn and be coerced away from these poor rulesets and administration, or Squad's server community will end up very similar to PR's, and will again result in many once loyal players dissipating from the playerbase...
×