Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stom

  1. The benefit of a dot sight in game is that it doesn't obscure your vision below the target making recoil control and ranged fire easier. Personally I haven't noticed the US having any more difficulty winning matches than any other faction.
  2. That's a bug with vehicles where they do heavily mitigate damage.
  3. It's a response to players killing themselves to restock ammo which is common across the board.
  4. The change is being coupled with ammo cost granularity so most of the time it will be a low ammo cost to rearm basic stuff.
  5. This was the explanation in the past but the gameplay ramifications have meant that a squad can entirely subsist off hidden rallies making it very annoying to maintain area control. I like the idea of this change, but only time will tell how it'll actually work.
  6. Keep in mind that with the difference between gunplay of Squad and PR a class like the sniper that worked in PR wouldn't be the same in Squad. This is the issue with Early Access because it's completely normal during a development cycle for something that was planned to be discarded as the game becomes more fleshed out.
  7. I agree that ranging and spotting should be improved in Squad but I don't think that coupling that with a bolt-action sniper kit is necessary or helpful. The scout kit already comes with a pair of binos to fill the spotting role. The issue of course is that since the kit also has IEDs and mines scouting takes a backseat but I think splitting the the kit into a scout and sapper with appropriate equipment for both would be an easy and effective solution, especially since it then allows scouts to be given to conventional forces. Given the amount of marksmen that sit in the hills ignoring their team now I don't see how adding a specific sniper kit would do anything to alleviate that, even the optic rifleman kit suffers from this issue.
  8. This isn't something I've ever thought about since I'm not a gun guy but I know the way Squad works is that out to a certain range bullets are hitscan that then become projectiles. Whether this is the reason or not I'm not sure.
  9. I think this is a much greater issue than you perceive. Because PS was in a test state (now Beta) only the most dedicated players were playing, if even they aren't getting a satisfactory level of teamwork then I've got to agree with the OP about the general system changes having a negative impact. While I haven't played much of PS so far it does feel like the infantry squad level changes are hurting gameplay more than helping. I've only seen a handful of FOBs set up and objectives just turn a contest between the two trickles of infantry coming from MSPs. However, that all being said I have seen vehicles being used in much more interesting ways in PS than the majority of Squad. This may just be because there are more powerful vehicle types in PS at the moment and the issue will disappear when MBTs and more IFVs are introduced to Squad.
  10. Mines are Bad for Gameplay

    The main gameplay benefit of mines is that they force vehicles to be more cautious. They're certainly not perfect and I'd love to see them updated so they couldn't be dug into concrete or asphalt since that just means most vehicles choose to travel off-road but they're a great way to give irregular forces a nice little advantage.
  11. AK s Iron sights

    From memory they used to be more realistic a while ago but the front posts were made slightly thicker for the sights to be more usable. I play at about 90 FOV with 1920x1080 but upscaled by 1.5x and don't really have an issue with it.
  12. I personally prefer that optics remain limited but have those limits vary depending on the Faction. I hope that eventually, when balance allows, the British goes back to giving everyone an optic but I don't really want to see RU or even US have the same. These limitations can create more interesting dynamics than every conventional force having all optics available to everyone. In terms of the OP though, I echo @Guan_Yu007. Irregular forces are the ones who get variety and choice of older weapons where the conventional forces get standard modern ones. It would be cool in the future to see some second world militaries that might get the choice between a couple of weapons systems but not as many as irregular forces.
  13. Why is there "free weekends"

    The issue with pursuing this more positive type of exposure is that the game is still in Early Access and most analytical channels won't touch a game until it is fully released. Tutorials also won't be valid for long, we've seen that happen already with OWI produced tutorial series. Squad occupies a weird space since it's a purely multiplayer game that requires a fairly mature community yet is in Early Access and still lacks a lot of features. Veteran players are going to take breaks no matter what, that's fatigue and happens all the time with free weekends being a natural point to start a break.
  14. This is exactly the kind of tactics I want. The ability for an MG to act purely as a suppression device while other troops move in to actually get the kills or just move to safety is something that doesn't really exist at the moment. Current suppression mechanics only allow you to suppress a couple of people at a time in specific situations. What I'm hoping the new mechanic does is mean MGs can be more reliably used to the point that strategies can be based around its suppression. However, I do understand the other side of the coin. In a situation where someone gets the jump on you but is a completely miserable shot you probably won't be able to kill them, which would be frustrating, but for me this is a small price to pay for a mechanic that could add a whole new dynamic to the game.
  15. June 2018 Recap

    I think the logic is that this change makes the medic kit more attractive to most players. The pressure of being the only kit capable of reviving players, which can easily change the tide of a fight, is what drives players away from the role. If the kit is instead focused on bringing revived players back to full fighting strength it becomes more of a multiplying factor rather than necessity.
  16. Balance of AK74, M4, and L85a2

    You've got a good argument and a very reasonable request so I support the idea.
  17. Historical accuracy in war games

    The petition is insane and will not achieve anything given the game is already well into development. I understand the sentiment of wanting the game to be more historically accurate but including women is one of the least inaccurate aspects given how much attention it's getting. I'm seeing gameplay of dudes running around in a huge mix of made up camouflage using red dot sights... in WW2. BF1 had the same issues, not that I thought the game was doing something terrible by using all of these prototype weapons in a WW1 setting but it seemed like it, and BFV, just want to give players a modern arsenal with World War 1 or 2 aesthetics. To me that's the issue, nothing to do with 'rewriting history' but it's just not using the setting to its gameplay potential. Personally, if I were to make a game like BFV I would set it in some alternative reality diesel punk setting so you can have the aesthetics and go crazy with weapon attachments and customisation.
  18. From memory it was removed because it didn't actually have any effect on the drivers safety so it was only cosmetic. I think it's coming back but there's issues with the current vehicle system that need to be resolved.
  19. SLs and Medics have agency, but if you're a 'realistic' loader you can't really do anything apart from a repetitive action. I enjoy vehicle combat and have been excited about MBTs since the kickstarter, especially the older ones like T-55s, but I really don't understand the obsession with a realistic loader position. I guess I just see the loader as a non-player entity that exists inside the tank since they have no impact outside of the vehicle so I don't see why you would subject yourself or any other player to the slot. I liked the original suggestion because it was that the loader should be an optional slot on the Abrams since it has a dedicated hatch gun. If there's something I'm missing tell me but apart from it being realistic why do you want a loader position?
  20. That's not what Gatzby or Fuzzhead said. So you still have the commander and even loader slot available but the tank is able to run without them, that's all. This way you can get more vehicles in play without increasing the player count. I know some players are fine with sitting in a loader position doing nothing all day but the vast majority of players and myself would hate that. Having the loader as an optional crew slot that has a gun like with the Abrams is the best way to go about it. Remember, this isn't Steel Beasts, it's Squad.
  21. Degtyaryov MG for Militia

    Militia are too well equipped to be using something like a DP-27 in my opinion. The RPD would fit Insurgents but I don't think they see much use in Eastern Europe. I disagree that the M249 shouldn't be used by Militia. It and the M4 not only give the faction some interesting flavour but add some context to the fight they're in, if they're against NATO then the weapons are probably looted, if against Russia then supplied by NATO and if they're against Insurgents then the weapons come from government support.
  22. What I meant by infeasible is that it's not worth the development effort to implement especially given all of the other priority features in the way.
  23. It would be possible to do in the engine but making it work in squad is infeasible. You've not only got all the issues with figuring out how to dynamically create holes in walls but you've then got to sync that to every player on the server. It's one of those things that works in a game like Rainbow Six Siege because they have small scale maps and the game was built from the ground up to support it.
  24. I've seen the loader position suggested before but it always sounded like the most boring role in the world in those other suggestions because it was never optional. What you've suggested sounds much better.
  25. It really is a balance thing. It's already easy enough for an optic rifleman in CQB, if you could just remove the scope on the fly there would be no downside to all to the kit. Also, I think realistically this doesn't happen but I don't really know.