• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About unfrail

  • Rank
    Battalion Staff
  • Birthday 03/11/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,615 profile views
  1. Windows-NSA is getting to me. I can only hope that a Linux Client is a possibility... Thrilled to see the linux server support. Thanks for the good stuff gents, thrilled as ever with the game. Just need more game-time IRL .
  2. Sigma Tactical is a team formed around Squad by a group of players that met in the days of Closed Alpha. Our goal from day one was quality of growth, prioritizing the character and communication over ability to show off technical gaming prowess or sheer numbers. This makes working together something we enjoy, boosting camaraderie and making the association of our members something we look forward to. Don't be mistaken, we play to win, train to improve our skill-sets, assist others in learning leadership techniques, and we strive to understand current meta as well as push the meta forward. We proudly adopt the mantra that "we never lose; we either win, or we learn." The majority of our members are centered in the US time-zones, but we have dedicated members in the European and SEA regions. We have recently reached numbers that bring us to a more sizeable and consistent presence where making our status more deliberately stated feels appropriate. We currently have 2 servers running, kindly hosted by ViLayer, and are in the process of drafting our technical documents to support quality ethical administration as well as boosting the assurance that there will be well-administered servers on line for the community to play on. When this happens, we welcome other communities to join us in battle, to help teaching the newbies the ropes, and to let them see the game in full swing. This page is very much WIP and will be updated from time to time. Feel free to drop a comment if you want to know more and link up, otherwise, please stop by in our discord or say hi when you see us downrange. Lastly we thank the team for putting such a great game together, its been a blast and we are a thing because of Squad. Cheers!
  3. Is access to the effort of an individual "a right" of that each player should possess? Or, is it the right of the laborer to disperse his efforts according to his will? At present, Squad Leading is generally viewed as work by the player-base. The ability to lock a Squad allows the Squad Leader to exercise discrimination with his effort. The current environment is one of entitlement, where players feel as though you're an asshole if you are a squad leader and you dont want them to be a marksman, or to be a medic, or to have a mic, or to make sure there are 2 LAT kits. I'm already working as it is. When I pick Squad Leader, its because I want to make tactical decisions for a group and to facilitate coordination, communication, and teamwork, not analyze tactical decisions with an ad-hoc committee of transient experts with unwavering opinions on what should be done but insufficient testicular mass to execute it themselves. To be certain, I'm often interested in input from my squad mates, or rather, I rely on it wholly to assist the direction of the tactics, but there are times when action is immediately necessary, and there needs to be a pretext of the agreement that is already put in place by its enforceability, which is to say, a Squad Leader has the authority to declare the actions of the Squad Body, and those who dont follow the Squad Leader are able to be kicked by said Squad Leader. This might sound like I'm some egotripping authoritarian, and if you thought that you'd only be half right. Militaristic order is an authoritarian endeavor, simply because of the time-constraints that military actions are subject to. If we all had time to democratically play a game of chess 9v9 the game would always be strategically sound, but it would also take a week to make a move. I digress from the philosophy, and reiterate that Squad Leaders already have the authority to determine who can be in their squad. Adding locks will simply clarify to both parties that membership in the squad is contingent upon cooperation with the Squad Leader's objectives. However, because the agreement will have been acknowledged by both parties prior to entrance, teamwork in squads will be better. Squad Leaders will have less variables to contend with (since the battlefield is already full of them) which will make it less work, which will make more people interested in doing it. I would like to see some method for players to "ask to join a squad" to drive this home. This would help negate much of the fear of squad-isolationism, as well as facilitate the acknowledgement of the agreement. It could be a 10 second "voicemail" where a player explains his interest in joining, a separate message-box where a text could be sent, and read at the SL's leisure, or perhaps its a 2-way-radio-hail that can be muted by the SL if it grows too persistent. A player has a right to leave any squad he chooses. I don't think fostering the idea that a player has a right to join a Squad will serve the game's playerbase in the long run. The game entirely rides upon Squad Leaders, and if you don't allow them to tailor their commitment to their capacity, they will be perpetually overworked, and the game will be perpetually understaffed. Exhausted Squad Leaders = a bad game for everyone. I encourage those who think they can do better, to do better. The game needs it.
  4. @suds i dig it. I would like to see base respawn on rallys boosted to 1m, maybe 1:30. I really think the only way to encourage life-conservative play is through pain-aversion, and the most painful thing we can do to players within reason, is make them wait (as incap, or as respawn at main and needing to run back). The genre's high profile on Steam compared to PRs until-recent niche obscurity means that the general playerbase is less interested in "participating in the simulation." The only way to make them suffer for careless ticket loss is dead-time, waiting for medic or running from main. The helping hand out of a significant wait time will be more cautious play (less run n gun) and the benefits that should be rewarded by squad membership, like the spawn-timer dropping like you suggest. Question is now, how could 9 men "game" a lowered respawn timer, now disregarding death, returning fast with full ammo to the point of rewarding poor gameplay again?
  5. Good thread keeps moving. Good comments dudes. @KCIV not sure if you got to my Spoiler section on the previous page, I was spamming ideas for solutions in there, and one touches on your interest in adjusting the rally mechanics by making a soldier have to run to the rally before you could respawn. The logic in this is that, if a rally represents reinforcements, and you cant get to the rally in one piece, then your reinforcements would probably not survive either. Additionally, I agree with other suggestions on increased delays on the "Give-Up" button. Thats how PR handled it if I recall correctly. There are definitely a large number of factors. I guess I dont comprehend what its like to go 30:2 in any form of regularity. I do 5:1 pretty consistently but not 15:1. That does speak to the ammo thing, but also we need to remember that those 2 could also be 6 revives and 2 deaths... I'm guessing the devs are skimming more stats that we are getting on the scoreboard though. 3mags would put a hurt on stores when engaging, and people would be needing ammo much more often, but until perpetual teleport of fresh troops and full ammo is reworked, reducing mags alone is not the solution (as you suggested).
  6. OP posted a "Bottom Line Up Front", if not for you specifically, here. This thread is a bit like the good ol days though, now isn't it ? Nice to have a serious discussion on the forums now and again. Cheers to fu for lighting the campfire.
  7. I have had a hard time seeing the positive side of reducing mag count. I have had some extended patrols as a squad in previous versions where we play the game at the level we envisioned it being most beneficial; maximizing medics and making good use of all those magazines. Were we the absolute top performers? Sometimes we were, but in current games the meta is shifting towards what has been discussed, which is disfavoring to medical/single-ticket-centric gameplay. If a player is able to kill 5:1 then giving up doesn't matter. objective-caps are the byproduct of effective killing, not the other-way around, thus effective killing has the potential to turn greater ticket returns on cap-wins. A player is usually able to kill 5>:1 by being involved in areas of high-enemy activity persistently. This presence comes from 1 of 2 places: Rally Points Radios. In theory, Squad Leaders should corral these types of players into cohesive groups. They dont, effectively. (a chided lone-wolf easily finds another SL who doesnt care) As long as the pool of respawns is shared in a "buffet" style, maximizing individual consumption is often equated to maximizing individual entertainment. As long as the forward respawn elements are capable of providing unlimited respawns, they will be treated as such. New player = full mags = a reinforcement that significantly shifts battlefield potential firepower, especially when considering LAT kits (1 ticket, 3-4 rockets) vs a Humvee/BTR (30 tickets). These are the factors feeding into the run and gun as I see them. The question is, is too much ammo the cause? Its obviously not one-dimensional. Take 3 mags from the lonewolves without changing anything else in gameplay though, and I think you might start to see a bit more RTB/RTFOB for ammo, but it does nothing to increase intra-squad dependence, because if I can get the ****-Kit, where a newb SL leaves me alone, I can talk any number of SLs into an ammo-crate if I cant talk mine into it. While the arguments for reality are limited in their justification, it remains "The best ideal," where anything short of physical pain in a simulation approaching reality would by many be sought-after. The real-world combat balance/paradigm that this game is trying to create is going to be better recreated as all things approach reality. That is not to say however that I disagree with limits to the application, particularly when they're imbalanced with the ability to simulate facets. 10-36 hour patrols being a big one, for which a soldier will pack his 6-10 Magazines. "Patrols" in this game are lucky to last 5 minutes, so a reasonable reduction makes sense in that regard. Is that going to encourage lone-wolves to rely more on medics and their squad's however? Am I going to be more inclined to wait for a medic when I'm out of critical ammo/supplies on the field? This does happen, medics will run out of bandages, others of 40mms/frags/smokes/RPGs, and when that happens its much more likely to say "I'm out of ammo, I'll give up anyways." When do people yell for Medic the most? I suggest its when they're far from an available spawn (Rally is down/FOB is down), the action is all around them (Read: the only way back to the action is a lot of running [read: personal time investment]). So its "pain aversion" that does the best job of keeping people on the field waiting for medics. Sure, at the end of the game when there's 10 tickets left we might see a bit more medic-requesting, but even then "Someone's going to take them, so it might as well be Rambo-ME" is not that philosophically unjustifiable of an attitude. The KDR at the end of the game is enough of an individual victory at present that the Team Victory is often trumped in priorities. So what do we need? We need a game structure that creates a situation where the individual depends on the Squad-body to function better. Currently that happens to some degree, but not enough to dissuade lone-wolf play en masse. Is reducing Ammo Capacity going to create stronger intra-squad dependence? Only perhaps as soon as there is an ammo-carrier class. To me, as a frequent SL, it sounds like a lot more "Drop a FOB" requests (regardless of strategic defensibility), and the last thing this game currently needs is another reason to burden the SLs with additional persistent chores. Thats my assessment of the issues as I see them. I'm a habitual fixer, so my thoughts for solution are buried in this spoiler.
  8. Yeah I hear you. I was aware it has been mentioned, but not certain someone has suggested the aforementioned solution. While I agree that determined cheaters will exist, right now it is so easy to do that it is much more prevalent than it should be. If I left my retail goods un-watched and un locked on the outside of my storefront, people would steal from me at a significantly higher rate. Keeping my goods behind a reasonable infrastructure doesn't eliminate thieves, it eliminates thieves of convenience. Right now there are many many cheaters of convenience. It does make a significant impact in gameplay. and the solution for the majority of cases is as simple as dont reveal intel on the map until a team is chosen and "sworn" once you've sworn to a team, you cant change till the next map The pre-swear-in time gives all the flexibility needed to hook up with friends on a different team, but this eliminates much of the low hanging fruit at a very cheap investment.
  9. Damn, really good thread. The rush meta has been grating on me because its beginning to become reminiscent of my experience in Insurgency comp, and what I call "the efficiency grind" where there are metas that develop and prove themselves the "optimal course" and the victor now becomes wholly determined by efficient execution of known meta, RE: The Residence-rushes on Logar previously cited. I have to ask myself if this is a problem, first off. This is a case where experience in a certain sphere lends the player statistical foreknowledge on the probable positions of players, and thus actions are taken not based on their simulatory tactical viability, but on the tactical value as they exist within a framework of a game that has been repetitvely played. Is the game designed to create a sphere wherein people are able to acquire broad meta-understanding, and then to challenge eachothers meta in a strategic sparring match? Perhaps in a competitive sphere this makes sense, or it is rather in-line with the competitive FPS experience in other games. I have to say however, that I hoped for more from Squad. Thats not to say a deliberate deviation of design was taken, or that all is lost. There was at some time a reasonable discourse about the addition of randomization of objectives. Randomization of spawns. This large-map framework becomes much more lenient to this kind of implementation than the more lane-based FPS map structures seen in CS/Cod/Ins. Simple randomization of spawns, and randomization of objectives would shake the meta up to a significant degree to where approximate engagement points would be somewhat obscured. Furthermore, what I often consider, is the possibility of only revealing the next objective for your team once it's cappable. This combined with a randomization of objectives would effectively negate the pre-cap issues that we are seeing now develop in the meta. Forward advance on the map would be done based on logistical and tactical viability to serve as a projection of power that would facilitate objective capture, instead of a rote-operation that has proven itself effective at overcoming the novice hoards. The problem with the novice slaughter, is that these are the guys trying to figure out whether or not they like the game. The game needs to offer them a chance, and against the dominant teams with developed aggressive metas, there's not one. The sour morale doesn't scream replayability, and if thats half the playerbase's experience the attrition is going to continue to be a significant problem for the playerbase. So yes, I do think that it is a problem at the design level of the game. I acknowledge its Alpha state, and look forward to changes. Spawn-Cost: I concur whole-heartedly. The teleportation of fresh-troops and full ammo to the front is the persistent leak in the viability of "real-world-tactics" in this game. As long as there are teleports in the game, this is going to be a dance of game mechanics. Rallys need to be reworked. 1 sl, 9 men, 9 spawns deposited on the field for free. 4 sl, 9 men, 28 spawns deposited on the field for free. Maneuverability and spawn mobility are what win the game, there is little incentive to large squads, however, the novice teams are always stacked with jabber-jaw players stacked 9 deep tied to a single backpack, while their enemy is spawning 4-5x in 4 different places around their position. I have a curated topic here on Logistics of Personnel that touches on all of these points more thoroughly and will not repeat it here because its already been said. Squad Locks, the planned(?) FireTeams and FTLs, Mandatory logistics, neutered rally point mechanics, and a better incentive for not respawning as has been suggested here would go a long way to bringing this game up to the ideal of gameplay that I think we are all hoping to experience; one where teamwork is what wins, not simply having relived the same map 2000x more than your opponent. As for eggmans' suggestion for ranking, I do think there needs to be a minimum ** hours before you can take SL. Minimum 500 rounds in Jensen's for pub-sniper kits, 200 rounds for RPG kits, 100 laps in the raceway for your drivers' license, etc would also be a welcome addition (Tying it to rounds not hours would make things more effective I suspect). I also think a rolling efficacy rating for SL's and players would be nice, where after 1 month of doing nothing, I would have no rep, but after 2-3 rounds of doing a role and kicking ass I could have a decent rep as a driver/medic/sl/RPG/etc. This would make only the most recent experience relevant giving newer players a chance to get caught up and in the action while supporting the effective roles. Anyways, Its not like I can go back to playing Insurgency.
  10. It is not uncommon in pub environments to have members join the squad and start blurting information out that they acquired about the other team's radios. While I dissuade anyone I can, there are others who value winning over all ethics and will take this opportunity to gain an upper-hand on their enemies. Unlike gamma boosting, theres something that can be done about this to dissuade all but the most zealous cheaters (that is what this is afterall, cheating.) I would love to see a lobby, a black screen, something, that prevented a user from seeing anything about the state of the battlefield. Here they could observe teams, see that their buddies are on the other one and wait for the swap, or just join the squad they're looking to join before spawning. Once a player "Swears in" to a team, the server locks him on that team till the end of the round, and at that point there is no changing, even on disconnect reconnect. Where this fails: People who call positions to friends in other voip-venues. I think that however, is something of a more limited scope problem, where someone ends up on a wrong team due to team balance and wants to sabotage to get a round over more quickly. In anycase, those situations are more short lived than what is currently, very persistent access to switching teams, getting accurate first-hand intel about an enemy team's defenses, and then setting about to undo them. I've seen players do this to spite getting kicked from squads, or players who were so socially unfunctional they simply needed to be on the winning team. Its not entirely the end of the round, but theres something that could be done about it, and it would make the game better from an opsec standpoint.
  11. Ah. RE:Like/Dislike, its all water under the bridge now I reckon. As for not-buying into the 5-minute no-swap timer for Squad Makers, what other way could you perhaps stop someone from making a Squad and then leaving it? I still expected SL to fall on someone upon Disconnect or crash, but perhaps it could be put up for grabs? I'm not sure.
  12. Cheers @-Steve-. What happened to the like buttons?? All good I reckon.
  13. Overall I'm very pleased with the pacing and the structure of the game. I'm thrilled that I backed and I would back it again over and over. I've made some good friends in my time playing Squad from Pre-Alpha to well into Early Access. Things are going well for me and a small team of regulars we have going and we hope to slowly push toward a more significant presence in the community, but we're more interested in accruing good company than rapid numbers, and we're having fun taking our time to do so. The game is really great at bringing people together. Things I love: The pacing and scale The game has turned out to be a rather calculated and deliberate moving tactical shooter. There are legitimate distances to cover, protect, and use for maneuvering, and it creates legitimate strategic and tactical dilemmas. Its wonderful and this is exactly the reason I abandoned other tactical shooters entirely for Squad. The challenge of gunplay I think that target acquisition, natural camouflage, and ballistics of bullets and other projectiles makes the acquisition of skill when shooting a wonderful adventure. It again compliments the need for considered tactical movements, observation techniques, and there's even room for application of combat formations that will benefit the squad in firefights (when cooperation and competence are sufficiently present). Smoking, Fragging, Flanking, Overwatch/Sniping, RPGing, Suppressing, All of these have distinct on-field advantages that augment the function of the squad on the field. The new logistics paradigm This addition to the game with the vehicles creates an augmented value to FOBs that I was excited to see happen. Defensive structures are now able to be more rapidly deployed at a rate that is needed to match quickly attacking enemies but contingent upon proper architecture and effective teamwork and logistics. It can be rare in pub-matches but when it happens its a majestic thing to behold. I could go on in more detail but just wanted to gloss over some of my favorite parts of the game as is. Things I think need reworking: FOBs are still really easy to spam. Its arguably easier to steal a technical with 3 ppl, zip around the map and drop radios without logistics, and then by the time the team has pushed forwards to the meeting point in the middle of the map there is a solid network of radios that are easily used to teleport the team to the frontlines without the investment of logistics. To put it another way It doesnt make sense not to spam FOBs as its still the best measure to facilitate victory. This can be done without vehicles and I think that needs to change. At some point I was under the impression that Radios were worth 50 tickets per, and so losing one became a much bigger issue than I normally considered. It made me change my game significantly (until I realized I was mistaken) but I liked the paradigm shift. All of a sudden enemy radios were a much bigger target. I believe much of the fast pacing of this game is a result of how easy it is to spawn forward immediately. I would like to see a lot of things made more difficult so that deliberate tactical consideration was more mandatory, but given the current level of pub-play I'll probably wait till mods take care of this. Despite that opinion, please dont buy into the "It needs to be fast for people to play" mentality. Gameplay is key, this market for gaming exists because you're not Battlefield or COD, so I would like to see the challenge of logistics pushed to its limits in testing, submitting my opinion to your experience. There needs to be better Squad Leader rules. I would like to see the following considered, acknowledging testing as the judge. Minimum 25 hours in-game before you can create a squad. If you create a squad, you cannot join another squad (Perhaps only for x-minutes.) Alternately, if you create a squad you cannot leave the squad for 5 minutes. You cannot assign Squad Leader without it being accepted. Some of these might seem harsh but here's the logic: This game is absolutely dependent upon Squad Leaders for teamwork. I think that playing as unassigned riflemen is less-bad than full squads of silent, non-communicating players with incompetent Squad Leaders. I'm tired of joining a squad and then having the Squad Leader leave and rejoin or pass the SL kit over for the marksman kit. I dont mind being SL, but thats some bunk shit and it wastes my time and everyone elses. Fireteam Leads will be one of the most significant boons to SLs and I'm excited for that addition as well. "Soft" Squad Locking. Squad leading, with interest in winning, working together, and ensuring that the squad mates and other squads are on the same page, is work. No surprise really, but its work. Working. Tiring. Exhausting. I can only take so much of it, and many people get overwhelmed by the lack of control that ensues when you create a squad. I really think that a squad leader should be able to restrict members from joining automatically. There should be a "request to join" button, and this would serve to: Help function-built squads to retain their organization (Recon, FOB-Placement/Hunting, Logistics, etc), Reduce the unnecessarily high kick-get-teamkilled thing that keeps happening. Accompanied by a communication-interface there could be a mic-check and cooperation check prior to joining such that cooperation was clearly negotiated prior to joining. No more of this finding some dude quietly filling the marksman role . Reduce the intimidation factor for people wanting to learn to Squad Lead. There is a big difference between squad leading 4 and 9. Getting squad leaders is one of the game and communities greatest challenges. This along with FTLs will imo make the biggest difference. Those are the big ones. I wish my AMD friends could play, and I'm hoping that with 4.13 and v8-optimization efforts that will be the case. I realize its largely part of the development process, but it does suck to have the situation as is cut 2/3 of the 10p clan-pack team out of the game. It sucks. Its unintentional, and I realize much of it is UE. No blame. Just love for any fixes that can be made. I love the vehicles, even though I hate how they're used 9/10 times, but w/e. Would love it if the Techies could have tires with treads, and if the BTR and Transpos could get v10 diesels instead of moped motors. But. I'm sure that will be tweaked in future revisions All in all, its a hell of a game. Great job as a devteam and hope yall take this as a pat on the back for a job well done and some words in the feedback box.
  14. The only way I can figure out how to solve this problem would be rather restrictive in certain aspects. 1: Only Squad Leaders can see Radios. 2: Only Squad Leaders can Spawn on radios. 3: Once you are a Squad Leader on a team, you cannot switch Teams. This would prevent easy access, and players would have to spend their whole game sabotaging a team which is much more arduous and thus I think it would be less likely to happen. This could also have some additional benefits but it obviously makes things somewhat more difficult for other players. It would make Rally Points critical, and to be honest as an SL I wish I could prevent spawning on Radios because people do so much too frequently. Rally points are much more preferable to Radios since they dont betray critical infrastructure with troop movement. Not much you can cut really. I occasionally have people join my squad and offer the info. I tell them to shut up.