eggman

Member
  • Content count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eggman

  • Rank
    Squad Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

431 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Fire teams sounds great. Use local for comms, another channel would be unnecessarily complex imo.
  8. 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
  9. Can only know if that is an issue by looking at data to determine what % of people stay from round to round versus new people joining the round. Assuming it's 40% to 70% of people joining partway in between rounds - having 30% to 60% of a Squad understand what is going on (and therefore 30% to 60% of a team knowing what is going on) may be a significant improvement in team play coordination. egg
  10. Agree the pre-match could be re-defined. If yer on a roll as a Squad Leader it can be hard to get a piss break in Suggested this format here: http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/25631-suggestions-from-an-sl-point-of-view/ ---8<--- A change to the start round session to give time for Squads to form up, SLs to organize: ~2 minutes for squads to form up, not spawned in game - if you are SLing a 2 minute break after a match is nice - this 2 minute period would include designating a 2iC and arranging kits in the squad - would still have Squad and Command vox available An "O Group" session at the beginning of the game, after Squad form up - a pre-game session where SLs and 2iCs can talk to each other - lasts about 2 minutes - all players can hear the "o group" chat amongst Squad Leaders on the Command Channel - all players can see the "o group" map drawing - SLs share markings on the map, one SL mark set is differentiated from other SL markers - include vehicle claiming in the O group session A Squad briefing session after the O group session: - lasts about 1 minute - SL briefs the squad on the plan, makes any squad kit adjustments required So the "pre-game" would be a 5 minute break between matches: - 2 minutes to form up squads - 2 minutes for SLs to plan - 1 minute to SLs to brief squads on the plan - game starts - a benefit of this is it avoids the games starting like CoD rushes where the SL farts out a plan with 3 seconds before spawning starts; it forces some "commanders intent" thinking into the start of the match which, hopefully, helps eliminate the issue where the best early-game rushing side has a high probability of winning the match - these timers could have configuration options for the server admin, say minimum half the recommended / default settings (so 1 min, 1 min, 30s). --->8---
  11. Things can certainly change, but the image below is from the kickstarter campaign. Personally, I think jets, especially air superiority fighters, have no place in a squad level game. Calling in an Airstrike would be cool, but dogfighting in an F35 over a Squad sized combat area seems out of place.
  12. Can you point me to any playable games that establish your qualifications as a subject matter expert on game design that qualifies you to determine good or bad design (over and above being a gamer)? "Spawn on the rally" is about as simple as it gets in terms of understanding Squad gameplay mechanics. Establishing that a patrol is out looking for enemy contact is pretty much what the game is about in it's opening stages. That's been bastardised to exploit an incomplete design that allows establishing an unrealistically fortified FOB early in the game. If executed well - as in you got moving faster and had no issues getting to the critical objective - you have a disproportionately upper hand rewarded for what amounts to very little tactical competence. The delayed spawn of logistics trucks is an idea to prevent the rushing forward tactics. Squad is a metaphor for tactical combat (because a literal representation would not be fun). The metaphor in the suggestion is that the logistics element would not push forward until some foothold in the combat area was established (again a metaphor because typically a supply truck would be pretty rare in combat zones as represented in Squad). There isn't much restriction on variety in the suggestion. It would merely adjust the first few minutes of the round (also eliminating the rather uninteresting stage of capturing objectives with 1 person). Either you didn't comprehend the suggestion, or you have interpreted it incorrectly. Reflecting "movement to contact" is looking at the dynamics of actual combat and using that basis for gameplay dynamics as a means of addressing a flaw in the current (incomplete) design. There is no enforcing areas of operations, the idea of a squad taking a specific area (by means of establishing their initial spawn in point within one of the patrol zones) is to clearly articulate where squads will start the game. That initial spawn point being clearly visible to all other squads on the map helps with team-wide coordination (as opposed to the "you go South, we go North" only to find that both squads went North because they changed their minds, or the driver got lost). The restriction to gameplay to a specific avenue is intentional as a means of making it significantly less viable to rush forward and spam down a team wide spawn point. The suggestions don't require that a regular Infantry man is aware of them. Just Squad Leaders. The "metaphor" that Squad leading in PR and Squad is intended to establish is that being a Squad Leader in a military operation is significantly more complex than most people would think. There is a huge amount of training required to be an Infantryman and even more to lead a squad. This isn't intended to be a "buy the game, lead a squad, be the hero" experience. AAS is to Squad is what Conquest is to BF. It's the bread and butter game mode. It's easy to grasp for most players. I don't see it going away (tho in Project Reality AAS evolved substantially over the years). Game modes will always develop an established meta around them. That's reality. When the metagame aligns to the gameplay dynamics and tempo you want, you stop ****ing with it. I don't think Squad and AAS are there yet. Some aspects of your suggestions are really great. But until those things are playable in a game situation, you can't really tell. An example of a metagame that would evolve in Territory Control is 5 guys in a vehicle performing a massive envelopment loop at the beginning of every game. Whoever wins the opening envelopment loop encounter has a substantial advantage in the round. And then it becomes a jigsaw puzzle game where you zig-zag 5 guys into a 2 or 3 thick line of squares to cut off the enemy territory, creating a "wtf just happened to all our territory" response from players just before they rage quit. It creates a "fight the squares on the map" objective as opposed to fighting the other team. Also if you think what is proposed here requires "looking up" and that is some sort of bad thing, after reading some of your suggestions again (I've read them int he past) we clearly have different experiences with what gamers think of as complex.
  13. What are your suggestions on how to fix the underlying problems? The reality is that if you leave a dynamic open to being exploited for the purposes of winning, players will exploit it. There is no way to eliminate rush tactics entirely. It's about mitigating the efficacy of the dominant "meta" game so that a variety of meta game options emerge as viable. I've had years of gameplay design experience, I would not consider these "unintuitive". It's immediately learnable for the regular infantry - as simple as "spawn on the rally". Adding layers of player controlled depth is what keeps games like PR and Squad appealing to an audience on a long term basis - some folks don't know, need to know, and may never care about certain aspects of the game; others can accumulate more knowledge of the systems and dynamics and attempt to apply that to their squad / team advantage.
  14. The opening of many Squad rounds end up quite similar, that being to rush forward and establish an FOB, blocking the enemy from taking a critical objective while your team takes the objectives behind you. The enemy is typically doing the same and it's usually predictable as to which objectives these will be. Many maps grind down to a battle over the middle objectives. More often than not, the outcome of this "opening gambit" dictates the winner of the map. Not always - which is one great aspect of the very organic Squad / PR gameplay dynamics. While this rushing tactic is not awful, the games can still be tremendous fun to play, it does not feel very tactical; it's a super gamey dynamic imo. I do not believe you can get rid of this all together, but I think it can be made less gamey. An idea to possibly mitigate the gheymeyness of rush tactics One thought I had is that mappers could, optionally, pre-define areas where a single rally point can be placed before the start of the game. These would be placed fairly far forward along the lines of advance. An SL can place a rally point in this area. Once an SL has placed a rally point within the pre-defined zone, no other SLs can place a rally point there. The "reset" timer on the rally point would start the moment the game started, so another one could not be set for 2 minutes (or whatever the duration of the timer becomes). This would reflect the advanced stages of a "movement to contact". This would not prevent rushing tactics - in fact this approach accelerates the opening minutes of the game into direct contact - but this approach would mitigate the negative impact of a team's first 60 seconds of the game dictating how that entire round will play out. There is nothing really interesting or tactical about getting out of your main fast and intact; it always feels gamey to me. These "patrol zones" would also enhance the need for pre-match coordination amongst SLs. It helps to establish "areas of operation" for individual squads at the outset of the game. In a future state where there was a command squad and commander, these rally point allocations within the "patrol zones" could be defined by the commander. See SL suggestions thread: http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/25631-suggestions-from-an-sl-point-of-view Here's what the Patrol Zones might look like for Chora AAS v1: In addition to this... Tie the spawning of logistics trucks at the main base to the capture of your first objective. Once the first objective is captured, the logistics trucks would spawn at the main base. This reflects the idea that this type of combat support is not available until initial contact with the enemy has been established and resolved. For asymmetrical play, insurgents might get a logi at main in the opening. This will add a degree of importance to securing the first objective (as opposed to it being one that often is left behind as meaningless in comparison to the need to block the enemy's first capture). With a "patrol zone" near that first objective, there is no excuse for it not to be easily capturable. Summary Add mapper defined patrol zones for each team where a single rally point can be placed by SLs Tie Logistics Truck spawns at main to capture of first objective. I think the combination of these two dynamics eliminates the ability to establish an FOB in the middle of the map as an opening gambit. It enables the first few minutes of the game to be significantly more tactical in nature (as opposed to who can get out of their main the fastest). It helps to establish a clear AO for squads. It forces coordination amongst squad leaders at the beginning of the game. It creates a "movement to contact" phase in the opening of the round, effectively getting some squads "into the fight" right away. These things won't eliminate rushing tactics, but rushing forward becomes significantly more risky; a more deliberate approach will likely be more successful. Thoughts? Cheers, egg