Jump to content

yedrellow

Member
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yedrellow

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

552 profile views
  1. W♥S Mortar Calculator 2.2.1

    This is pretty awesome. I was trying it earlier and in practice it's extremely reliable. Not having to use an inaccurate guess and check, or use observers really opens up the game for better mortar usage. Because I know I can be more precise, I am starting to screw around with deliberately patterning mortar impacts to increase the chance of killing infantry. Only thing is that it seems to take quite a while to actually launch. Does anyone know if installing this on ssd should make it launch quicker?
  2. It also causes a traffic jam if a BTR or supply truck goes to resupply at main base. The vehicles block the road out of base after respawning.
  3. I don't really like the system as it shoehorns vehicles in to being integrated with 9 man squads, rather than allowing specialised infantry squads to act being supported by transport/logistics as was common in Project reality. Forcing a single style of asset integration means more rounds where teams fail to organise themselves logistically, and means that pure infantry squads are relatively rare. The style of logistics/transportation that is shoehorned in to Squad at the moment forces people to choose between operating at partial strength, or abandoning vehicles. Meanwhile, the player requirement means that any attempt to operate a pure logistics squad will be too player intensive to be beneficial to the team.
  4. Squad leader Direct marking

    I am more referring to how I see high end players using it at the moment. It is really really arcady in a sense. You can have extremely dense terrain, and yet a squad leader can still pinpoint to his squad pretty much exactly where to aim. Best example of this would be dense trees like Operation First Light.
  5. Squad leader Direct marking

    The mark on HUD seems really abusable to me. Squad leaders can now directly mark targets mid-combat to direct fire, which seems overpowered.
  6. In AAS or territory control the fob construction point rate is alright, as it barely affects the battle. In an Insurgency mode that lacks vehicles, logistics and transport however, I feel that the amount is way too low. Before, the blufor was best off avoiding combat and hitting caches with quick strikes and exfiltrating while taking minimal casualties. Now however insurgents have to worry simultaneously about making sure their groups of troops can withstand groups of blufor that can be 3x their number (on Logar AAS if they simply decide to defeat in detail), with no chance for reinforcements, and also about ninja incendiaries. The ninja incendiary from sole squad leaders punishes attempts to defend through aggressive action, however overwhelming blufor troop swarms punish a lack of aggressive action. It becomes overall a far more complicated exercise to defend than to attack, making these maps imbalanced. With barricades, the time taken to kill a cache through prolonged action increased, which allowed the ability for insurgents to reinforce as needed. While I recognise insurgency will change drastically once transport and logistics become requirements, in its current state it feels very much like a blufor favoured swarm v swarm.
  7. There has to be a "toggle" focus

    Personally I'd prefer the zoom to be available at all times regardless of whether you're ADS. However, I think as it shares a button with sprint, and the Squad developers want to avoid reaching the same number of required keys as Arma, they can't really do this.
  8. There has to be a "toggle" focus

    The reason the zoom is needed is not because of anything to do with shooting mechanics. It's to do with visual mechanics. The visual acuity on a monitor without any zooming will be far lower than what the average person is capable of seeing in real life. Without zoom, a person~200m away in Squad seems like he is really far away. However in real life seeing a standing person at 200m is really quite easy. Unless you want Squad to be about the struggles of combat when suffering from short-sightedness, you need a mechanic to counteract this issue.
  9. At the moment, if you have the toggle ADS option off, you are able to lean while looking down sights and move at the same time. However, once you turn on toggle ADS, this is no longer possible. While I understand I am in the minority, I prefer toggle ADS being on to off. However, due to the extreme utility of leaning while moving and looking down sights in urban cqb, I find myself toggling it on/off on a map by map basis. It would be good if the ability to do this was fixed for people using toggle ADS.
  10. V.6 community feedback

    Turning off eye adaptation helps a lot with the brightness on Godorak.
  11. V.6 community feedback

    Games pretty much unplayable for me since new patch on all maps. Frameskips/stuttering regularly FPS way lower in general (on old maps, not just new maps) Automatic fire causes massive frame dips Blurriness that definitely was not present in v5. Specs: i5 4770, AMD 7970, 8GB ram Performance before the patch was impeccable.
  12. This is the exact problem I am talking about, and I had a problem way back when I played Project Reality as well. The way an asset should be used is to maximise effectiveness, regardless of how that happens to be. Tank hunting blatantly works for the purpose of killing tanks, so it definitely should be an option. Keeping them organically with a squad can also work, but it is all situational. Artificially restricting the style of integration is definitely a bad idea because you are forcing people to always stick with one style of integration, regardless of whether a different type of integration would be better in the circumstance. What about mechanised infantry squads? What about having a helo directly integrated with a squad? They can in certain circumstances be more effective than having them as separate elements. I am biased potentially because I came from a server (BigD) that definitely opposed such asset restriction enforcement. We dealt with asset wasters by having them kicked and banned if needed. That's how it should be, and if a server wishes to restrict assets on that measure, that's their own perogative. However, it definitely should not be the responsibility of the developer to enforce a single style of asset integration in to the team structure.
  13. Vehicles will definitely make the game harder to admin. The problem though is that if you artificially restrict an assest by squad type, as in some PR servers, you are artificially restricting the variations in styles of the way that the asset can be used. For example, if I have an IFV like a lav or btr, should that vehicle be organically part of a squad, or should it be a separate asset that squads can call upon? They both have positives and negatives depending on how you choose to integrate them in to the team structure. Another example would be a heavy-antitank role. A designated small heavy anti-tank team can be very effective at hunting tanks, while organically integrating a heavy anti-tank in to a squad definitely increases that squads survivability against armoured counter-attack. I don't believe that a certain way of utilising these assets should be enforced by server rules, let alone by the developers. People who misuse assets should be dealt with individually by server admins. Over time those people will disappear, just like hackers and tkers.
  14. SVD too weak

    In my mind this problem isn't necessarily with the fact that an SVD is ineffective as a marksman rifle, but that any extra damage beyond 50% is generally wasted with game mechanics as they are at the moment. It would not be a solution to make the SVD more powerful necessarily, as it would either be merely useless if it didn't enable 1 shot kills, but overpowered if it was able to. This problem will occur in the exact same fashion for any future higher caliber weapon that is incapable of 1 hit torso kills (FN FAL, G3, M240, PKM etc.). The only solutions I could imagine are to: Change the damage/distance drop-off such that there is a distance in which a torso shot will kill. For example, maybe less than 30m. This would have the unintended side-effect of making an svd a close range beast, so I dislike this idea. Add new killzones that enable a 1 shot kill for a higher caliber weapon. An example could be through the heart, spine, or through the side between armour plates. Though too small of a hitzone might be too RNG-ish for some people's liking. Also this solution is a lot of work, and is probably not worth it to try and solve the 2-bullet-problem. Embrace RNG, and change bullet damage to produce a range of damage rather than a fixed value . This would enable on average for a single svd hit to be more lethal at the same distance as a 5.56 hit, but prevent the situation in which it will always kill in a single hit. Change the healing system such that a revived player has less total hit-points than a fresh soldier. If a revived player instead has 75% health rather than 100%, and the higher caliber weapon gives a damage range that starts at over 75%, then more hits from an SVD will be lethal when compared with a 5.56 hit. All 'solutions' have problems, but I think it's important to come up with one before other higher-caliber weapons are introduced.
  15. Aiming Deadzone

    I dislike it because it creates the awkward situation as in insurgency where people miss more in cqb than they do in long range combat.
×