Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Friesen

  1. Just wanted to post an appreciation how I'm glad the voices have been heard and finally it's going to be added. I have stopped playing Squad because I found it one of the most super precise sniping fest I've ever played where laying suppressive fire does zero impact. Really got bored where everything is about sniping each other and very little tactical based gunplay. But this just might bring me back!! So glad the voices have been heard. Please do not cut down on the strength of it, keep it strong as it's good when the suppression is strong, it puts more emphasis of the whole squad's firepower and it's more meaningful to lay a covering fire for the squad as well as makes firefights longer lasting and more interesting. Thanks so much devs.
  2. I love it, any snipers/marksmen will be now firing from unexposed positions and try to stay hidden as they should be. Right now I can go head on towards the enemy and shoot with an optic anyone I come across as long as no enemy also doesn't have an optic to counter me. No enemy fire in my direction is going to affect me. Which is why I've stopped playing Squad as I got tired of such meaningless gunplay. But now I can't wait to get back to Squad and hopefully the gunplay will be a lot more tactical with this suppression involving a lot more covering fire rather than twitch-aiming and being about who pick each other off first.
  3. Aim Punch like Post Scriptum

    I've been repeating the same thing over and over in the hope that one day devs will realise that a mere visual suppression effect such as a blur is never going to stop me from returning accurate fire. And I've been hoping that the devs will realise that mechanical suppression effects is what makes it truly work and like MGs suppressing enemies actually effective and that mechanic is as a subtle flinch that slightly puts off your aim for when bullets whizz by your head, similary in which in real life it's an instinctive reaction for those flying bullets, in which this mechanic simulates this. Now that you have Post Scriptum people can finally realise and compare the vast difference of how everything in Squad is just twitch-point-shoot super fast and iron-sighted weapons are completely useless, they are like canon fodder, and optics are like godlike completely unswayed by the incoming bullets. And this is what mainly makes the militia/insurgents vs the US/Russian forces so unbalanced, contrary to what some people believe.
  4. Well you see, you make your judgement, most of people here even though they never tried and see how it works. Then why would you make your assumption such as "ehhhhhhm not sure" when you don't know what you're talking about and the fact that in DH the maps with advance objectives work exactly the same way as in Squad (attacking one and defensive), and once the lockdown was implemented, it made the stalemates reduced by about 80% (as well as pre-early precapping and steamrolling).
  5. With having 2 objectives open at once, it needs the lockdown feature of objectives even more so. Please devs add lockdown for objectives (so that you can't capture it until 2 minutes elapses. Even better the next objective that opens up should be unlocked 1 minute earlier than the one your team just captured. So the new defending objective has a bigger lockdown time (like 3 minutes) and the next objectives for example 2 minutes. This encourages the losing team to actually fall back and go back to the defensive objective rather than instantly trying to counterattack the lost objective which almost always ends up in a stalemate.
  6. By stalemate I mean is that 90% of my almost 1000 hours in Squad the objectives don't go further than the 2 center objectives. Very rarely see actually go to the last capzone unless the other teams are comprised of very beginner like players. Well if you never even tried the lockdown feature for example how in DH works then you'll never know what you're talking about, that is the problem about all the people bringing cynicism to the suggestion of implementing the same feature that already DH, HLL and PS have it.
  7. I don't get it why they changed it... Before you could see which one has got an ACOG and which one just a normal rifleman. Now it's so annoying you can't see this.
  8. Look, if you don't lock the objective you've just capped as well, then the stalemates are just going to continue. The lockdown for the obj you've just capped actually makes the team to reorganize and regroup in order to take it back. Both in DH as well as in HLL if you capture an objective, there's a lockdown which prompts the team that lost it to fall back and defend the next one. It would be virtually impossible to push to the next capzone while you're constantly being counterattacked at the objective you've just captured. The only few times it does happens it's extremely rare, and this is why in Squad it's a stalemate most of the time. Look, both steamrolling and stalemates are a big problem. And I guarantee you in games like DH, the lockdown for both (the next attacking objective and the one you've just captured), works very well. It prevents you from steamrolling the next empty objective too quickly but at the same time it prevents from stalemates which derives from the other team instantly counterattacking the objective you've just captured.
  9. Completely false. Darkest Hour mod has got maps where teams are attacking and defending at the same time and it's got exactly this lockdown feature. The team then that captures the objective, it gets locked for 4 minutes, whereas the next objective that opens up gets locked only for 2 minutes. That means that the team that captured the point has 2 minutes to spare for to attack the next objective before their defensive unlocks for the losing team to counterattack it (which gets unlocked after 4 minutes). Both HLL and PS also have the lockdown feature. (and even though PS is only pure offensive, HLL capzones go back and forth similar to DH). And what it does is that it reduces the stalemates where the battle is stuck at 2 middle capzones, and when captured it gives a sufficient time for the attackers to push to the next capzone without being instantly counterattacked like it's now where often it seems impossible to push out from the objective you've just captured to the next one. It also encourages the team that lost that objective to fall back to the next defensive objective. Too often teams that lost an objective just try to instantly take it back rather than fall back. No one almost wants to fall back and with this feature not only it forces the team to fall back but also it makes them regroup and reorganize in case they want to take back the previously lost objective. Also if you think that with this feature the team that gets pushed back almost never would turn the battle around is not true. On the maps in DH with this attack and defence style I've seen the battle turn around almost 3 times, like 1 team pushes the other team to the last capzone and then they pushed them back all the way to the other team last capzone and so on. So even with the lockdown feature, the come backs happen all the time in fact, however the main thing is that it vastly reduces the stalemates and instant counterattacking as well as pre-early backcapping.
  10. Yes, most AAS matches end up either in a stalemate or steamrolling of undefended objectives. That's what most of my games were in this gametype. I've also made a thread why Invasion mode is ultimately better some time ago and AAS is just a huge waste of time most of the rounds. Unless they added lockdown for objectives (longer one for the objective you've just captured and shorter one for the next objective that opens up). This forces the losing team that lost the objective to fall back to the defensive one (instead of always trying to instantly take it back and also it gives them time to regroup and reorganize). And since the lockdown for the next activated objective would be shorter than for the one you've just captured. It becomes open to capture much earlier. It would give sufficient time for the team that captured the objective to attack and push to the next one instead of being constantly stuck at the defending the one they've just captured and being instantly counterattacked which often makes the team almost impossible to move out. And then usually when they do move out, they often leave it empty and then getting back-capped out of nowhere.
  11. I just tested Hell Let Loose and even though it's super unpolished at this stage, many things aren't even implemented yet. I was really glad that the suppression flinch mechanics are really strong and decent. I don't get it, this can't be possibly excuse for Squad dev's that they still haven't had enough time to do it when HLL only just came out and already got a good suppression flinch. The reason people have been saying Squad is dying because of simply optics are so OP that makes everyone practically a marskman that is able to hit enemy popping out from across the map. It's like point & tap tap tap dead kind of incredibly boring firefights that makes this game so tiring to play. I'm absolutely convinced that Squad's problem lies in the firefights, and with the suppression flinch for flying bullets, the firefights would feel 3x times better than now. It makes the firefights more immersive, and longer lasting and it's less about sniping fest all the time but rather how the squads should mutually support each other and respond in a collective suppressive fire rather than everyone being their own marksman... It is untrue that in real life your hands wouldn't be shaking, because it's completely different to shoot at a target range and to actually fire in a real battlezone, the flinch is actually more realistic than without it, because no matter how experienced the soldier was, you'd always have an unsteady aim when the bullets are whizzing by your head, no matter how trained the soldier is and besides this is meant to portray an average soldier in the game. And the flinch is what it represents it, it's an instinctive reaction to oncoming bullets which makes it harder especially for the optics to easily return fire while being pinned down.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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...
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.