Jump to content

Stom

Member
  • Content count

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stom

  1. That's all it is. Tencent owns a non-majority portion of Epic stocks and people are using that as a fear mongering excuse to boycott the Epic games store. If Tencent was really interested in user data then they've probably already got it since they practically own half of video game publishing. but there's no evidence to suggest they want it. The Epic Games Store has issues, mostly when it comes to lacking features for sure, but spyware isn't one of them.
  2. ZEROING

    I doubt that animations for sight adjustment are coming. That kind of small fiddly detail is pretty time consuming and the animators could be working on other things like entirely new weapons or emplacements for example. Not to mean there's no chance, but what they've got now is perfectly fine, better than some other games that zero without actually changing the sights at all.
  3. Anti-material rifle

    I think the crux of the issue with your initial suggestion is that you emphasis the 'see through my optic' part. That makes people think of this: While there would be edge cases of people using a scoped anti-material rifle really well and helping the team, most of the time players would just grab the role and go play Sniper Ghost Warrior on a hill, maybe get a couple of kills then die. What I think would be better are one of these: No scope or anything fancy, just an ironsight big gun. But again, this wouldn't really make a difference in Squad, they would be pretty fun but wouldn't have much of an impact so not really a priority.
  4. Anti-material rifle

    The only Anti-Material kit I could see working without attracting the negative sort of playstyle sniper roles tend to attract would be an unscoped version for the Militia and Insurgents using a PTRS-41 or PTRD-41, which has been brought up occasionally on the forums. These are old anti-tank rifles from WW2 that are still seeing some use today in conflicts because they use the same ammo as the KPVT machine guns on the BTR which is plentiful. The main issue is because they don't have a scope and are only firing the 14.5mm round they would be pretty limited in effect. On modern armour they wouldn't be able to do much other than damage some components. On Logis and other light vehicles they could potentially knock out the engine. They could damage emplacements and penetrate cover pretty well but because they are slow firing with a limited-mag-capacity/Single-shot this would also be pretty limited. So yeah, overall it could be a fun addition but probably wouldn't have much of an impact on the game. A nice wishlist item but certainly not worth the development time at the moment, in my opinion.
  5. While the technical issues like performance are certainly a problem the lack of visibility is sort of the point. If the only result of being damaged was something that indicates the state to the crew but doesn't negatively effect them then the vehicle performs at close to 100% combat efficiency until it is dead which isn't an interesting mechanic, at least to me. In the current state of vehicle play damaging the visibility of a vehicle is one of the few tools an average infantry squad has to deter an armoured vehicle.
  6. Body Armor

    I agree with the others about the current TTK being good, so I don't really want to see body armour. While it would be potentially interesting for Conventional vs Irregular layers they're only half the game. The issue when you introduce armour like you've suggested is that on conventional vs conventional layers it'll just mean players are more bullet spongy and move slower which is not something I really want to see.
  7. What does this game do better than PR?

    It's something that fundamentally affects the game design though. Vaulting and climbing are not necessary for an FPS and for most of Squads life didn't exist but the effort was put into designing and implementing the system and the result is that the way a player interacts with the environment is completely altered, which affects both system design and map design.
  8. You've got some useful stats there but the vitriol you've coupled with it is completely unnecessary and muddies your point. Optic kits having the majority of kills isn't really surprising or upsetting. Squad is an infantry focused game with vehicles to supplement, that's always been the goal, and optic kits are focused on accurate fire so they will get more kills. I do agree that if the ratio was reduced a bit and given more to vehicles it would be good but it's not ruining the game. A big part of the picture these stats are missing are objectives. Optics can help attack and defend objectives but non-magnified weapons are dominant on most objectives when clearing and holding. Vehicles also play a big part around objectives in destroying enemy transports and area denial which sets up a lot of the optic kills. Explosives are a bit limp at the moment, from memory due to a bug, which means grenades, HE rounds and mortar fire is less effective than intended. It is a little frustrating when landing a GL a few metres away from an enemy and having them unfazed, but it's also frustrating going to far the other direction where you just find yourself constantly being blown up by inaccurate explosive fire.
  9. The Wrench -- February 2019

    Lots of awesome stuff! It's a mod my man, you don't need to touch it.
  10. What does this game do better than PR?

    My favorite thing is the massive improvements to general player interaction. Moving through the environment with movement speeds and the vaulting systems is a pleasure. Gunplay is responsive and reliable. The radial menus work well (expect for the vehicle one glitching a bit). There are a few elements like suppression and vehicle handling which need to be further improved in Squad but I still prefer the direction they're heading away from PR.
  11. Insurgency Panzer IV

    At the moment Insurgents are also getting the T-62. If any WW2 tank were to be added to the game I would think a T-34 would suit better because it's actually still in service with some third world countries and was supplied everywhere at the beginning of the cold war.
  12. Redeploy From Main Base

    I think a lot of players don't really mind the idea of taking an empty logi back to main, what they don't want is to become the 'logi-guy' because once they get back there's not much to do but either kill themselves and wait one and half minutes or continue doing logi runs for the whole game.
  13. Redeploy From Main Base

    This suggestion has come up a few times and I'm absolutely for it. Whenever I'm in a squad that places a slightly risky FOB to assault an objective we end up either leaving the Logi somwhere out of the way, then if the assault goes badly we've lost it, or destroying it. Having one person return the logi and redeploy would be a perfect solution in my eyes.
  14. January 2019 Recap

    This is something that keeps coming up that doesn't make much sense to me. The game has the same game modes, kit system, squad system and even some of the same maps from PR. It is thematically and structurally the same, it has fulfilled the promise of being a spiritual successor. I personally don't care much for flyable aircraft and have been in favour of more realistically moving call-ins from the start but I can sympathise with people who were excited to fly. To my mind Squad has turned into about 80% of what was promised in the kickstarters and I'm satisfied with that because they've been transparent enough with their reasoning for letting some features go.
  15. January 2019 Recap

    They are still working on choppers but it's not a matter of just pouring more man power on it. It is a combined arms game and choppers are a single aspect, BMPs and T-62s are going to bring a lot of balancing and interesting elements to the known aspects of the game. Who knows what choppers will do.
  16. January 2019 Recap

    I am so excited to play with all that new armour, and ammo granularity is sorely needed. I think that might just be the end of a gun run.
  17. Squad is dead or not ?

    People often use "it's an alpha/beta" as a shield against criticism but I think a lot of this "wack-a-mole" of mechanics is just the reality of Early Access development rather than MilSim vs Arcade fighting one another. The challenge Squad faces is that it's a team based shooter that has to be balanced, but hasn't finalised any of it's key features and that's where this constant reshuffling comes from, not the genre. For me personally Squad plays better than it has in any version before, there are some who prefer some older mechanic versions like the V9 aiming controls and even those that preferred the game without vehicles. People will come and go, but to my mind Squad has maintained it's balance of arcade and milsim really well during development and is filling a void in the market quite well. Whether there is a massive playerbase waiting to find and fill that void or not is pretty irrelevant at the moment since there's plenty of sales to fuel development and always servers that are full. When the game stops making money or can't fill servers that's when it'll be time to worry, not at the moment.
  18. Everyone wants to see the HUMVEE return in some iteration but my guess is that it would need substantial remodelling to properly avoid any legal trouble and that's just not worthwhile when there's so many other vehicles that would have a greater affect on gameplay for those resources to be dedicated towards. I agree that the vehicle has enough differences in role to make it valuable to the game compared with the M-ATV but not to take priority over something like a BMP, Challenger or helicopter which would use the same artists.
  19. Interactive IEDs

    Didn't know that but it's exactly what I'm suggesting. In Squad it would have a greater tactical benefit than I image it has in Sandstorm since there's armoured vehicles.
  20. Kept thinking on this idea rather than sleeping so here it is. I propose that when an IED is placed it becomes an interactive item with a radial menu like the Rifleman's ammo bag, rather than being immediatley armed and ready to be detonated. The options on the IED would be something like these: - Pick up: Everyone can do this, including enemy. For the scout the IED would go back into their equipment slot but all other kits would carry it in their hands until dropped. - Arm/Disarm: Only scouts can do this, and potentially an engineer/EOD type kit for conventional forces. - Set detonation phone number: Only the scout that placed the IED. Coupled with this, the phone detonator item would be changed so it would open a different radial menu like the Squad/Fireteam leader command menu. This menu would have three separate detonation 'phone numbers', which for ease of use should just be the last three numbers of a phone number (eg. **** *** 092). When you select one of these numbers it dials and detonates any IED set to that number. There is also the potential to share numbers between Scouts using this menu, but that's not particularly important for the suggestion. So why do this? Simply put, the IED is the most interesting and powerful piece of equipment for the Irregular forces, and given their current relatively weak performance compared to the conventional forces it's prime time to push their assymetric strengths further. This would also give the IED the ability to be carried and detonated. This would avoid the potential for certain countries to take legal action against the game because there would be no OWI created suicide vest in the game, but if players decide to use an innovative tactic with the game mechanics, so be it. There's also smaller details about IEDs that could be improved and expanded, like exploding when hit by another explosion or having counter-IED kits like an Engineer or EOD tech. Let me know what you think.
  21. Interactive IEDs

    That's a large part of the reason I made this suggestion, both Rising Storm and Battlefield allow players to do it through mechanics but don't have specific weapons or kits to do it, which is what I am suggesting. Insurgency Sandstorm doesn't allow players to play as suicide bombers, those are only AI in the coop mode. I think all of these games don't have explicit player controlled suicide bombing to avoid the potential legal or publicity issues but the practical result is players can still do it as a tactic. IEDs can currently be destroyed by anyone with a shovel. I am just suggesting that the engineer kit, which is already in the test branch, has it's capability expanded to disarm IEDs. Coupled with this IEDs should no longer be destroyed by shovels so only Sappers/Engineers can disarm them adding value to those kits and increasing the threat of IEDs. Setting numbers would allow Sappers better control and versatility with how they use IEDs and if you find it too complicated and don't want to work with those mechanics it would work the same way it does now where all IEDs are bound to a single default number. From a reasonable standpoint as someone that plays the game I agree. But the players who are already in the community aren't the people that would cause a fuss. You and I see it as a game that represents real world tactics but there are many people in positions of power that just see games as romantic escapism so when they hear that a game set in the modern day let's you play as a suicide bomber against real world countries they think it's 'training terrorists' no matter the context. You might remember all the media fuss that resulted from someone making a mod that had an ISIS faction in Arma 3, which was always intended as an opfor faction. It's funny that just after I posted this the test branch updated with an Engineer class for each conventional faction that has explosives and a vehicle repair kit. So if IEDs were overhauled that class would get the ability to deal wit them.
  22. Interactive IEDs

    Well if you know some trends from recent years you'll notice that a few major countries such as Germany, China and Australia have banned a few games for various reasons, from drug use to gore, so it wouldn't be surprising if they did take action against a game that lets you play as a suicide bomber. There's also the Medal of Honor reboot that caused a huge amount of media fuss by naming one of thier multiplayer factions Taliban which they quickly undid, while that's not the exact same situation you can see connecting threads. What I've proposed isn't any more clunky than using an ammo bag, and if you've seen the recent playtest version of the game there is already an engineer class that has explosives and a repair kit, so they wouldn't be dedicated to anit-IED but rather an addition to their role.
  23. Javelins are a tricky thing to balance for sure but the devs have stated many times in the past that they want to have as few vehicle one hit kills as possible I'm not too worried about it ruining vehicles. With Component damage being expanded I'm expacting the Javelin will mainly damage components like turrets and ammo rather than outright destroy vehicles. There's also some potential systems like thermal vision for vehicles that will make conventional faction vehicles stronger and mean a fire-and-forget HAT isn't quite as powerful by comparison, this would mean that irregulars wouldn't have thermals that make up for the Javelin but I think it's fair to say irregulars aren't ever going to have strong vehicles when facing conventional factions. I don't think Squad is interested in that sort of really specific level of realism, though the idea of only firing it when crouched could be alright. Having an extremely high ammo cost would be enough for me, something like 500-750 ammo points would mean you're not getting the Javelin constantly hitting every vehicle on the map. That's pretty much what I want except I was trying to design it with the current limitations of the kit system in mind. Talking to some people on Discord the perfect system would have individual pieces of equipment that have kit and squad/team size restrictions rather than the whole kit change system we have now, then you would customise your utility items based on need.
  24. Vehicle balance is a bit of a sore subject at the moment but whatever your thoughts I think it is a perfect time to look at changing the current infantry anti-tank kits and how they're distributed. What I suggest is that LAT is moved from Fire Support to a single direct combat role and a single new Medium Anti-tank (MAT) role takes it's place in Fire Support. This suggestion also assumes that the Javelin is made ready to replace the current US/GB HAT kit with the AT-4 being reverted to pre-buff power and the TBG-7V Thermobaric RPG-7 rocket is ready. The faction Infantry Anti-Tank roles would be roughly as follows: US/UK Combat Roles -LAT(1 per squad): 1 LAW and 1 Frag Grenade. Fire Support Roles -MAT(1 per squad): 1 AT4 and 1 Frag Grenade. -HAT(1 per team): 1 Javelin. Russia Combat Roles -LAT(1 per squad): RPG-26 and 1 Frag grenade. Fire Support Roles -MAT(1 per squad): RPG-7 with optic, 1 HEAT rocket and 1 Thermobaric Rocket OR RPG-7 with optic, 2 HEAT rocket and 1 Frag Rocket. -HAT(2 per team, 1 per squad): 1 RPG-7 with optic, 1 Tandem HEAT rocket, 1 HEAT Rocket and 1 Frag Rocket. Militia Combat Roles -LAT(1 per squad): RPG-7, 1 HEAT rocket and 2 Frag Rockets. Fire Support Roles -MAT(1 per squad): RPG-7, 2 HEAT rocket, 1 Frag Rockets and 1 Thermobaric Rocket. -HAT(2 per team, 1 per squad): RPG-7, 1 Tandem HEAT Rocket, 1 Heat Rocket and 2 Frag Rockets. Insurgents Combat Roles -LAT same as Militia Fire Support Roles -MAT same as Militia -HAT(2 per team, 1 per squad): Same as Militia OR 1 RPG-29, 2 tandem HEAT Rockets. These loadouts aren't well developed but hopefully they convey the point. While this does appear to give US/GB less anti-armour power keep in mind that Russian/Soviet vehicles are mostly lighter than their NATO counterparts. I think these changes would make squad compisitions more interesting by freeing one of the fire support slots and would give infantry a little more capability to engage armour without shifting the balance in their favour too dramatically. Let me know what you think.
  25. Please read the post.
×