Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Friesen

  • Rank
    Platoon Leader

Recent Profile Visitors

670 profile views
  1. From your comment it seems obvious that you've never seen how it works. A lockdown is time based (hence coolDOWN which is also time based). You are confusing what's on Invasion which is a deactivation of objectives once they've captured, they are not on lockdown. Lockdown as said it's time based, and once it's captured for instance for 2 minutes the opposing team cannot start capturing back until the lockdown of 2 minutes elapses. That encourages the players that lost the objective to regroup and fall back. And also I've explained how in reality it's not as you say, "you need to defend, co ordinate to attack" when the facts are that most of the time it ends up in a stalemate and I've also said how it's been tried and tested in other games that it actually helps to break the stalemate a lot more and stimulates the battle forward.
  2. Most of games remain in a stalemate and very rarely go to the last objective. And whenever in fact they do manage to push the other team to the next objective, that next objective doesn't usually have any defenders, because they still try to retake the old lost objective rather than try to fall back and set up defences on their next one. A lockdown feature of an objective that just has been capture for about 2 minutes (even 1 minute would largely help out) would encourage more players from the losing side to actually fall back and set up defences on the next objective. And trust me 2 minutes it's not a long time so it's not like they wouldn't be able to counterattack and retake the lost objective. In the meantime of this 2 minutes they could actually take that time to regroup and reorganize themselves and then try to retake that lost objective rather than just instantly trying to take it back. Because right now it almost always ends up in a stalemate, you take an objective but the enemy will almost always take it back and you'll find it almost impossible for even 1 squad to leave that objective and try to push to another. Because as soon as you do that you lose that objective quickly and it's just an endless stalemate. The lockdown feature works very well in other games and it is something that is necessary when you have multiple objectives open at a time which one of them is either you have to attack and the other you have to defend. And the lockdown of 1-2 minutes feature works a great treat to stimulate the battle forward more. BTW -> A lockdown feature of not only the objectives you've just captured but also a Prevent Capture Time for the next objectives that open up as well. So that it would prevent steamrolling and taking of the next objectives that are empty and before even defenders have the time to get there.
  3. I played a minute ago and I think I must've gunned down single handedly an entire british squad and none of them could handle my optic so yes the optics are extremely OP and it's going to make any faction that has less optics very under-powered.
  4. Thank you fuzzhead for acknowledging the very important need for it. All I ask is a subtle flinch like Post Scriptum already has, look how effective is here for instance at 6:42 at making that sniper take for cover after that bullet snap which prompted his aim to go slightly swayed away.. And it works brilliantly because then optics are not so easy to just peek out and snipe everyone. Suppressing someone is then actually meaningful and effective.
  5. Has there not been a suppression overhaul in the last V11 update ? Can someone tell me because I'm pretty sure that the devs said they are reworking suppression and I was really surprised to see nothing about suppression in the V11 changelog...
  6. And that's the thing, with the subtle flinch it's still very easy to hit anyone within 25m, that video shows how a little flinch there doesn't put off your aim a big deal so any target at short range would be an easy target even under fire still with that flinch. Because at the end of the day, the game is played through a screen, you need these mechanics to produce a realistic outcome. And most people haven't even given it a try and then they post a false assumption that it takes your aim too much when in fact, in that DH video the player was still able to continue to fire. And when people do try it out then they realise, that yea, it actually does bring the firefights to a whole new level and not feel like the game is some cod/BF with a gunplay that mostly revolved around who snipes whoever first rather than suppressing fire being meaningful imposing stress/instinctive flinch from bullets and overall real soldier capability when being underfire rather than making it like as if soldiers are some kind of terminators.
  7. You know there are people who actually complained about how they no longer able to pull off things that they were able to do before the latest new animation update. And same thing you're talking about, some people actually think that what you can do in BF3/4 or in Cod you can do it in real life no problem. Same thing is in that video, because due to lack of game mechanics you're able to pull off gamey stunts like killing those 3 guys same way you can do in BF3 or Cod. Whereas he should not be able to easily aim at those 3 guys if he's fired at, no chance in the world that would happen in RL. He didn't even particularly get any advantageous position. The advantageous would be if he was lying somewhere on a high up point hidden either in the bushes and then he'd have a higher chance to not get revealed and thus fired at as he lands those shots. But in that video, being fired at and completely unaffected by it, it's totally ludicrous to claim that this is realistic. The reason developers add mechanics to impair either player movements or aiming because in the beginning of the game development all of these things are always extremely basic. We've already had an animation update which was pretty good. And now is time for a good suppression system which will balance these things out, the optics won't be able to just point & shoot on the go just because you've so got accustomed to it. Well there were people also complaining how they prefer to run'n'gun as before in Squad as well.... There are always people like that for some reason that like this sort of arcade but once the new suppression system is added, a lot of people are suddenly going to be enjoying the firefights more all of sudden... That is because it will overall feel more realistic and I'm pretty sure that you'd realize this as well if you gave it a try.
  8. That's completely not true, even here which is Sumari Bala and it's as close as it gets, I easily take down someone that has iron-sight weapon and it happens over and over again. The suppression mechanic would simply tone the optics to a more stealthy usage and not going out like rambo and being unaffected when underfire. Because with the suppression you're bound to have your aim now affected if you try to pull off the same things like in these videos. The incoming bullets should affect you in game with these mechanics because there's no other way to instill that into a player that sits behind a monitor. These mechanics bring you actually a lot more realistic results than without them.
  9. You can never get as many kills using iron-sight over an optic, it's as simple as that. And if you're not affected by the bullets due to lack of suppression mechanics then you'll always have an easier time to deal with enemy using an optic over an iron-sight. You're not going to tell me that in that video, that guy would just as easily kill those 3 guys if he was using an iron-sight and not an optic. Completely absurd to even think that he would've done exactly the same. If you get the suppression balanced right, then you would not want to purposefully miss the enemy because like in the other video showing the flinch suppression, purposely missing you'd just lose the firefight and get shot. The modern rifles are precise but the human reaction is always the same, and unless you get terminators in a video game, the human no matter how trained will always have an instinctive reaction to oncoming bullets and would not have the same aiming ability as when in normal non-stressed situation such as not being underfire.
  10. There is a significant disparity between the iron-sights vs the optics if there is no suppression. However with more suppression, those 3 guys would subdue that player firing with an optic. Granted those 3 guys probably didn't have an optic and this is what happens when you don't have these mechanics. 3 iron sight dudes don't stand a chance against 1 optic guy. I care about the balance and you probably don't from what you say, that you like to completely dominate other players with your acog optic and immerse in an individual sniping spree, rather than the game to be more about cohesive squad based suppressing fire. Look if you take any fps game at an early stage, the shooting mechanics are always super precise. And the job for the developer is to actually largely impair those abilities, so that it's not a sniping fest and it's closer to real life. There are some people however that grow overly accustomed to such plain and simple point & shoot mechanics and think that it's ok. But I guarantee you that you wouldn't be able to pull off going like a terminator shooting one by one using an optic if you are being poured with bullets like in that video. If you were suppressed like that guy was in that video you'd probably not even try to return fire. And this is what the suppression mechanics are for, to simulate not only fear, but also the stress and physical reaction to oncoming bullets.
  11. Yea I had more than 50 kills with that acog or as a marksman in Squad in one round many times. And it feels so super easy to rack up kills with it. So your assumption that people want a suppression in the game because for their lack of skill is completely wrong. People that want suppression know that it makes firefights better and more balanced overall rather than just being about individual marksmen picking each other off like terminators. That guy in the video who shot 3 enemies while bullets are poured at him also wants a suppression as it's ridiculous how unbalanced is the gameplay between the optics vs iron-sights and the less suppression you have in a game like now, the more arcadey the firefights actually are, because all of this sniping actually requires so little skill when the bullets flying at you completely doesn't affect your aiming ability which in real life that's totally not the case. A soldier in real life would definitely not have an easy time aiming under fire compared to when shooting from a safe position.
  12. No actually not true, that's misconception. Look let's take a look at this video here, the player actually shoots with a semi auto mode as opposed to full auto (that weapon which is BAR can be fired in auto mode in that game). Instead the semi auto mode is still more effective but not as easy to hit the target if you're being fired at but at the same time it doesn't completely prevent you from firing back like in HLL. The subtle flinch that is there is a perfect balance that makes the firefight just have a little more depth in them rather than easy point & shoot. And I can assure you that once that mechanic is in, people would all of sudden start enjoying the firefights a lot more based on more laying suppressing fire in order to overcome the enemy. Not only becomes harder to return accurate fire with that mechanic in game but also it creates more learning-curve as opposed to just simple point, tap tap drop dead in seconds.
  13. Currently in Squad player will only hide back in cover if he doesn't know where is he being shot from. The top problem is coming from the optics being way too overpowering if he's already got an eye on you even though hundred of bullets are flying at his direction. Yes in real life you're bound to lose some concentration to say the least, if not totally shaking from not just fear but the sheer velocity and sound of bullets that are buzzing your ears. You'd not have the same ability of sniping someone and being completely unaffected by flying bullets in your direction the way it is currently in the game. Where players brazenly and vehemently just usually snipe you first, even though you started shooting at them with a machine gun. That is the problem is that it discourages general firepower and suppressing fire from your squad, but it promotes more of a sniping syndrome that everyone acts like lone marksmen that pick each other off. A simple blur, and a subtle flinch/sway would tremendously improve how the firefights usually go about in the game. Would involve a lot more squad's cohesive suppressing fire over the lone marksmen picking off each other one by one. People have been posting videos for a very long time now like here and saying that without suppression gunplay is just point & shoot... easy or Lack of suppression = depression. I can definitely relate to that as it does make me depressed lol. Even though these two are not my videos. But especially the first video does show what I'm talking about clearly, that guy using the optic should absolutely have no chance to hit these enemies so easily when all those bullets are flying at him. With a simple blur and a subtle flinch, the firefights would definitely last longer, be more interesting and would encourage players to seek more hidden positions to fire from just as in RL rather than going and shooting everybody like a terminator. These two aren't even my own videos, it just shows how many people are desperate for some kind of small subtle flinch that would prolong these firefights and are depressed because of over-prevailing sniping gunplay that drops dead whoever headshots first. And the person who made the first video is coming from a shooter's perspective and still wants this suppression, so it's not like someone is even complaining from a receiving end that is constantly being sniped but actually understands how this over-dominant sniping should not be that easily accurate while being poured over with bullets. I've made however my own videos as well trying to convince that it's needed and hopefully it'll pay off and see this one day.
  14. Well as someone said, there should be a perfect balance when it comes to suppression. I think right now the sniping that is going on is way too dominant in the game. When I talk about balance, imo the video above imo shows a perfect balance of suppression flinch that is very simple and it works. It actually does not increase the more you're being fired at like it's in HLL. So this is why HLL can be exaggerated, because their suppression effect increases the longer you're being fired at. And I'm not keen on their desaturation of the screen either, imo simple blur and a small flinch of the aim that is subtle would suffice (like in that video shown). I like the simplicity of Darkest Hour small flinch which has a perfect balance of still being able to respond firing (as you can see in the video, but does not make the firefights ending almost instantly where everyone is picking each other off in seconds). The firefights then tend to last much longer and it really puts a lot of emphasis on the whole squad's suppressing fire cohesively rather than individual marksmen sniping enemies one by one. I think with that suppression it's more about portraying an average soldier as it is not easily possible to train yourself not to be affected, but even if some do get used to it in real life, the truth is the average soldier wouldn't be. And the game shouldn't be about special forces that act like terminators but rather about the common soldier. Also the suppression should actually be effective as it is in RL, thus players need to accept what it's like on the other end of it.