Jump to content

eggman

Member
  • Content count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eggman

  • Rank
    Squad Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

496 profile views
  1. "Give Up" Timer

    A timer that shows the players their give up timer would be useful (it's exposed in game with the bleed out state, should be exposed in the UI to the wounded player). As the UI indicator (something like a bar decreasing in size) shrinks down, eventually it gets to 0 and the player is forced to give up. Giving up earlier than the bar at 0 would add some portion of the "early give up" to the player's respawn timer (in addition to other penalties). I believe it already works something like this, so just adding an indicator to the player would help reduce unnecessary give-ups. eg
  2. I have fingerprints all over the right side of my monitor from "measuring" the 400m distance Aside from the "friendly" FOB marker showing the distance and build circumference, and the existing FOBs having a toggle to show the circles... a mappable key command for "FOB dropped on my position" that you could quickly press and see the circles in the map would be helpful. That would be based on the SLs current location being where they drop the radio. You could then very quickly see the impacts of dropping an FOB on your current location. A bit gamey, but would help with positioning the radio in a way that allows for hab / fortification / weapon emplacements in good positions. Less gamey than moving 5m and trying again and again imo.
  3. I think a "layers" toggle in the map could be useful. Might not ever be more than one "info layer", but the ability to turn that on and off would be useful. Default to on, let the player decide if they want to turn it off, remember their choice.
  4. SL map suggestion - show FOB build circumference and FOB distance circumference. Hacked representation of the concept below. Should only be viewable by SLs. Would also apply to the friendly FOB placement marker. Would not apply to enemy FOB markers. This would simplify the understanding of FOB minimum distance and FOB build radius. Cheers, egg
  5. @Tartantyco I'm not aware of any of your ideas - explicitly as stated by you and originating from you - being incorporated into Squad. I designed most of the systems in PR. Many of those were limited by our ability to extend the engine, so compromises were made. The Squad devs don't have the same constraints, they can do anything they want, so the issue is what is the right thing to do and at what opportunity cost. WRT the build radius, it's not a commonly known datapoint today. Yet it can have material impact on gameplay. Reflecting both the distance and build circumference in the SLs map view would greatly aid in comprehension. That way people don't need to know anything, the map shows it to them. Adding that to the friendly FOB marker would greatly simplify planning and comprehension. That way - whether it's a fixed value or a variable value - it's easy to determine this from the SL map UI. WRT the distance between FOBs, the one size fits all approach - while not a critical issue - does create scenarios where FOB placement options on smaller maps are very limited. One guy places an FOB at the center of a map and that's the end of useful FOBs on that map. Having a variable circumference based on map size could help with this. That said, it's not really that big a deal imo, just a possibility to evaluate. The thing I have a hard time grokking is that when I read your suggestions, ideas, systems, while there are - at times - some good concepts, on the whole they come across as incredibly convoluted and complex and, in many (most?) cases, totally non viable. Yet you look at other people's often much simpler suggestions and dismiss those - with an intolerable one way broadcast of arrogance - as being overly convoluted. The only evaluation I can make of that is you are fixated on your own ideas being sound and not capable of objective evaluation of different perspectives. egg
  6. Using your most pompous tone.. tell me.. how many games or game systems have you designed that have been put into practical use in a game by players over an extended period of time? The arrogance in your tone is completely unfounded given the mediocrity of your ideas. The concept of "FOBs need to be one major grid square apart" is incredibly easy to grasp. With a system of scaled grids, this enables different minimum fob distance for different map scales, but still one simple rule "one major grid square apart". egg
  7. iirc in PR the distance is 200m. 400m is pretty arbitrary. It also doesn't match to the major grids in the in game map. It would be simpler if the FOB distance and the major grids in the maps had a common measure. A "one size fits all" approach doesn't work across map scales. The limit on distance is an imperfect system, but not having a limit is open to all kinds of exploits and issues. IMO grid major squares on the map should be the same as FOB distance placement. Large map = 1000m grids, 100m sub-grids Medium map = 500m grids, 50m sub-grids Small map = 250m grids, 25m sub-grids This setting would be determined based on map size, set by the mapper following a set of rules for what defines large, medium, small. That way I always know that FOB placement distance is the equivalent of 1 major grid / 10 sub-grids on any map. The build radius for the FOB could be the same as the construction distance. This could also scale with map size. Meaning a small map FOB distance is 250m, the build radius - centered on the radio - would be 250m - or 125m in any specific direction. That might not be workable as a 500m distance from the radio on large maps could be bad for gameplay - might need the build radius to be smaller or a constant value - just looking at ways to simplify. The numkey based sub-grid system could be discarded given there is now a UI indicator for the grid / sub-grid location. egg
  8. Squad unplayable with no players

    Yeah - pretty much that. Admins can configure: 4 - 12 players: use map rotation list A 13 - 24 players: use map rotation list B 25 - 50 players: use map rotation list C 51 - 100 players: use map rotation list D And configure the minimum number to start a round, preferably as low as 4 players (2 per team). The idea being that "list A" might only have some small Infantry only layers (or map layers designed for a small number of players). And that the server will adjust the map rotation based on rules that change the maps in accordance with the player population. This would help tremendously for small markets and in seeding servers in any market. Squad is a niche game, so small things that help keep it alive are more important than other "flashier" features imo. eg
  9. Squad unplayable with no players

    An auto scale setting on servers would be a huge help. Even starting at 2v2, then scaling up would improve this. Admins can change the maps, but can't always have an Admin around. It would be great to start a round with just 4 people to get a server alive.
  10. Get rid of the conquest game mode entirely

    I've seen that too, tho lately it's been less frequent - mostly because I think ppl are bored and willing to "try a change". I don't think Conquest mode works as currently implemented. I think it can work, but in my view it's better if there are a small number of flags on the map with shorter travel time in between the flags. On an 80 player server w 4.5 squads per team, I think 6 flags is the absolute maximum; 5 is better, 4 might be the best (none of the conquest maps have only 4 flags). I mostly dislike Op First Light as a map, but the Conquest mode on it can play OK because there are 5 flags and relatively short travel time between objectives. On Gorodok and Yeho I think Conquest plays particularly poorly. There are not enough players to cover defense, so you can spend long matches with part of the team not really in the game, or attacking empty objectives. I'd like to see other Conquest maps with 4 flags and a slightly reduced distance between then CPs than currently on Yeho or Goro. egg
  11. I can't tell if you are serious, or just using hyperbole. Squad will be neither of the things you mention. I've stopped posting ideas here for discussion because many people in the community are incapable of constructive discussion. Project Reality and Squad are intended to be "thinking man's teamwork-centric tactical shooters". The SL is expected to be the most "thoughtful" of the squad members. More cerebral load on the SL combined with more tools to offload the mundane, or to clarify their "commander's intent" will add depth to the game. @Bug mostly agree with your thoughts. Don't think I proposed a Fireteam comms channel, would be an unnecessary complexity, just use local when with the fireteam.
  12. Devblog - Out and About

    Rhino is correct, didn't notice the inaccuracy. There was some discussion about this on the PR forums in this thread: http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/144986-really-man-started-all.html I posted to clarify there, will paste that here to ensure there are no misunderstandings.
  13. Devblog - Out and About

    Was good fun. Special thanks to my mate Janman for providing some awesome weapons. Had a blast, could shoot 5.56 all day long, we hit a local restaurant aftwerward and had burgers and milkshakes. Guns, Games, Burgers, Milkshakes. Nobody wounded. Good day in man-land egg
  14. Fire teams sounds great. Use local for comms, another channel would be unnecessarily complex imo.
  15. Great stuff. Tho, as much as the community appears to struggle with math, the more accurate and appealing way to describe the map size would be as 36 sq km. Or, in other words, almost 4 times the playable combat area than the largest squad maps to date. Love the size, the experimentation and the involvement of community members in the creation - look forward to it! cheers, egg
×