Fandango831

Member
  • Content count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fandango831

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

241 profile views
  1. I'd rather them keep the LAW for the US LAT as it makes more sense as a weapon seen at platoon and squad levels and the damage levels make sense for how many LAWs are usually in map. However I'd love to see the US faction receive a HAT kit that has something like an M3 MAAWS that can one hit heavier vehicles and act to balance out the AT kits overall. Just some brainstorming.
  2. My only major peeve is the current state of weapons sight pictures. They're definitely the weakest component to SQUAD's gunplay. However I'm hoping come V10 it won't be an issue.
  3. Check out the Mod Community page. Already the BWMod Team working on bringing in the Bundeswehr.
  4. Bringing back an old topic now that V10 is in the coming future with changes to both player animations and gunplay in the pipeline. In the realm of sight pictures and gunplay what are players looking for most? For myself personally these are the changes I'd enjoy to see (not singularly V10) . 2D sight pictures for magnified optics w/ an alternate view for CQ Reworking Red Dot/Iron sights focus mechanics Reworking recoil in relation to sights (increasing control/reset) Differentiating between long range optic advantage and close range optic advantage Improving medium range engagements w/ above mentioned focus mechanics For magnified optics I feel 2D sights just better depict scopes and eye relief. They also force scoped weapons to operate primarily as long range weapon systems that can help tango at medium ranges also, but deter players with magnified optics from diving into close quarters engagements. These magnified weapons can also have an alternate sight picture that can be used in close quarters situations that aren't as advantageous as using iron sights or unmagnified optics but still allow the player to participate in closer engagements. Examples Below> (Magnified RCO) (Alternate RCO) (Magnified 1P78) (Alternate 1P78) For Iron Sights and Red Dot sights I feel the current positioning for the most part is fine in SQUAD. However the bigger issue comes into how the focus mechanic effects those sights. Obviously those sights need to be great at close range which means having the larger FoV for quicker target acquisition, but they also need to work well at medium ranges without hindering the player. How I see it for the focus mechanic when sighting without focus there is no DoF on the sight. Just a plain old sight unmagnified sight. However when focusing up to 1x magnification for medium range engagements a vignette narrows the zoomed sight picture reducing the players peripheral vision but still allowing for accurate engagement of ranged targets. Examples below> (Unfocused CCO) (Focused CCO) (Unfocused 1P63) (Focused 1P63) (Unfocused AK Sights) (Focused AK Sights) This Vignetting is just meant to demonstrate the overall concept of the effect on focused aiming with unmagnified optics. This forces the player to make a call as to whether they wish to sacrifice their peripheral vision in lieu of engaging more ranged targets or if they rather keep their full FoV in the unfocused view to be most effective in Close Quarters engagements. This also helps to even the playing field between unmagnified and magnified optics in medium range engagements. On top of all of this the issue of recoil takes the cake. I'm sure it'll be resolved as time goes on especially considering the change in animation systems but along with improving the sight pictures of weapon systems making the recoil not just more manageable but also improving the relative consistency shot per shot is key. I can't really throw around any examples as this is a system that just needs to be tested repeatedly across a player base until one best fits firefight pacing, sight picture accuracy, reset, and relative player enjoyment on as I said before a shot per shot basis. For me personally I enjoy a more controllable form of recoil as I personally find it best reflects my own experiences but like I said it is really a system that needs to be tested multiple times over by the community as whole until one best fits the relative majority of players and game pacing. I can't wait to see what the future holds in terms of SQUAD and how it will define itself as a shooter as well as how V10 brings more to the player base with hopefully a much more immersive and enjoyable gunplay experience for everyone. P.S. The SQUAD Devs are my heroes and I'm happy we all got lucky enough to have a great team of people working on a great piece of entertainment. Keep being the heroes you guys are!
  5. Improvements in Animation and Immersion (medical, movement, gunplay) Improved/Authentic Sight Pictures Optimization Pass on larger maps Continued Work on Audio Systems (Suppression, Muffling, Diversity) British Faction These make up what I would want to see in V10. Obviously a continuation of optimizations but a good shift towards implementing and improving gameplay mechanics that are currently either clunky or detract from a more enjoyable play experience.
  6. How's work with your optic effects?
  7. Seeing someone messing around to make a neat SQ controlled gun run is pretty amazing! @Axton Phenomenal job with using blueprints making that A10 experience. Hope to see more in the future. Also digging your other blueprint endeavors.
  8. @GonzoPRThis almost made me cry hahaha! So damn true. As for SQUAD and INS being competitors, other than both of them being FPS titles that's about it. If the rationale is that then technically by Lewis Logic all shooters are direct competitors. Sorry, but both titles are very different experiences and cater to very different player bases minus the whole gun shootie shootie thing.
  9. I'm sure down the road we'll see a USMC faction either from the DEVs formally or from the modding community. If there's one thing I appreciate about SQUAD is the development teams appreciation for detail. They don't go ham on it but each faction is clearly given time in terms of making sure they look the part. The new US Army and Russian Army models look great and do a wonderful job of making each faction not only look authentic but also do so in a respectful manner in relation to their real life counterparts. From the blogs the British also look like they are receiving the same amount of love in terms of detailing. As for future factions, aside from the remodeling of the insurgent faction and implementing the Brits I would think objectively the team is concentrating heavily on gameplay and optimization, but hope is not lost for any USMC fans and vets. A big component to this game just as it was for PR is that sweet modding community. I mean we have Al Basrah now thanks to ChanceBrah and KoffeinFlummi is currently working on introducing the Bundeswehr (And doing a phenomenal job). Just like PR was built up from both the Devs and a creative community effort so will SQUAD. So i'm more than positive that if we don't see the Marines come up in development from the dev team post release we'll surely see them be a modder's creation with just as much love and detail put into it. On the use of camo variations I don't see the reasoning for it. Even RS2 doesn't do what you describe. RS2 still has faction specific clothing just it has the use of veteran items you can unlock over time like rolled sleeves, tats, and etc. USMC uses BDU variants, Army uses Olive Drab variants, NLF uses civilian attire, and the NVA uses their respective tan uniforms. Even Vurden has faction specific clothing it just lets multiple factions play on one map due to how they designed their PvP campaign system (Landsers, Poilus, Tommies, Highlander) . What you're describing is more along the lines of BF3 but maybe holding more to a limited selection of available camouflages. If SQUAD or even RS2 were aiming for a less authentic play experience I'd fully agree with you, but since the aim is for an authentic battlefield experience (including the factions) having different camos detracts from that goal. In the end I could see a veteran customization system in game in that would let you do little things to look more grizzled or battleworn but no full change in appearance such as camouflage or equipment.
  10. Have you ever had a round pass by you ever in your life man? There is a reason why they teach react to contact drills, and why a sniper is considered a force multiplier. One shot is enough to stop a whole platoon moving (especially accurate fire or as you'd say "close calls") and I can sure as hell tell you you're dropping to the deck, calling those 3 D's, and sure suppressing the origin point of the shot but you're not placing accurate fires on target. I'd suggest not speaking on something unless you have experience on the topic. The blur exists for the sole purpose of forcing you to drop, call the contact, and suppress the contact. Not so "Mr. Invincible" can go **** it I don't care he's shooting at me let me just sit here and return accurate fire. Even the most experienced combat specialist isn't going to conduct himself in that manner in real life. Since a game can't force something called common sense or battle drills into your head as a player they implement other effects to force the player to react in a manner that better reflects what yes people would do in the real world. Literally go talk to anyone who has ground combat experience, I don't care in what theater, they will tell you the same thing.
  11. I'd say even with different perceptions we both agree that the lighting system currently in place is "okay" but not up to par with what should be in place to fulfill the accurate portrayal of shadowing and global dynamic lighting in-game. Even with a partially broken lighting system in UE4 external solutions are an option to improve lighting (of course cost would be the biggest issue). As for my commentary on negative statements my point was not merely to point a finger. My point is whether a statement is pro or con towards an issue it should be supported with reasoning. I would be equally as critical if someone was praising the current lighting model without giving rationale as to why it was so amazing in their mind. I'm a firm believer that discussion can only be achieved if all participating give thoughts for both pros and cons. I feel most would agree saying something is good or bad isn't good enough when it comes to making discussion. Providing reasoning is the most important factor. But yes I actually do agree with you that there are holes within UE4 and it's lighting subsets. From issues in Skylight to Lightmass. Hopefully in this thread creative ideas and solutions can be brought up that could be found either useful or a unique direction outside of the box. P.S> Jealous that you probably got to enjoy White Night this year.
  12. To be fair I agree that in a perfect world Reshade and other third party solutions would not be needed. However making the exact correlation between Reshade/Photoshop to a bad lighting system is not exact or accurate. Some people use third party solutions to merely change styles of shots, or provide a different level of cinematography to a scene. Not just for gameplay purposes or to "fix" the game. I often use Reshade to change tones of scenes to better capture the styling I would like to see on screen as I capture shots since most third party solutions offer a plethora of post processing effects you could never find in game or don't fit the original design aesthetic of the game that the creators were aiming for. The current lighting model used by Squad isn't all that bad to be fair, especially as a simple solution to the current build of the game. The point of this thread is to ask people what they would like to see out of the lighting system in the future, not just state that it's bad and move on. That's not constructive. If you have ideas then by all means share them with everyone and give thoughts that forward the topic of conversation. However if just making negative statements and stating one should not ask for these things is all you intend to give to the conversation without then establishing what you feel would improve it or what direction you feel the model should take then I'd say this thread is not for you. Now back to the topic at hand. To follow up your statement it is not Epic that needs to adopt a new lighting model but rather the model Squad uses needs to be changed or further improved upon. Lighting systems can and usually are independent systems in engine. There are many third-party lighting solutions available for a whole bunch of engines including both UE4 and CE3 as well as adapting and modifying lighting workflows. Ryse does not use the same lighting model that Crysis 3 or even Prey use yet they are all CE3 titles. Sames goes for even Frostbite Engine games that take advantage of systems like Enlighten. What should be a goal for down the road is that the Offworld team look for a lighting solution that will best fit the art styling they desire which from here seems to be aiming for a more photoreal lighting model.
  13. I have to say the sound in A9 is phenomenal! As a ground guy I'm in love with not only the report of weapons but the variation in both incoming sonic and subsonic rounds as well as the use of more prominent ricochet sounds. Really helps to inform the player he/she is under fire whether accurate or inaccurate. Hopefully in all seriousness sound designers for other shooters..(RS2) really take a look at how well done and balanced @anders produces and implements his sounds. Truly setting a bar not only for the future of SQUAD but also for titles looking to create immersive sound environments. Keep up the amazing work!! edit: Anders MasterClass would be top for sound designers
  14. As I said before there are plenty of other things that "modify the game" like using Nvidia to supersample and run solutions outside of the game through your graphics card ,or adjusting for saturation levels and gamma using third party hardware in your monitor. None of these solutions including reshade/sweetfx are cheating software. Most of these solutions require a powerful system to even run smoothly in the first place. Again if you feel so vehemently make a poll, but don't go spurting about opinion as fact and don't begin to presume everyone agrees with you on the subject.
  15. Well being that reshade/sweetfx is usable on most games and applications for various reasons across the board I don't see the point of your complaint aside from feeling like some people may have a visual advantage over you in a match. If the Devs didn't approve of such modifications they wouldn't support the use of it themselves. Your complaint is literally the same as saying a guy is running the game in 4k with additional AA solutions, multiple monitors, and additional pipelines so he can see better than me since I only run the game on high at 1080p so he's cheating. Post-processing solutions are not aimbots nor are they any bannable cheat whether that be wall-hacking, etc. If games were meant to be run equally across the board they wouldn't have graphics/game options or the ability to support said visual solutions in the first place. There would be a universal setting that all users would have to comply with that could not be changed. If you and your clan feel so vehemently on the issue then host a server where post-processing solutions are kickable and settings are universal for all playing on your server. Then you'll get your "even" playing field. Hell if you do feel the community is so against the use of these post-processing solutions make a poll. Let's see the communities voice on the issue, but don't speak for us since you're not us.