• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 40mmrain

  • Rank
    Squad Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

397 profile views
  1. please please dont tell me you actually think people should not be able to build FOBs with 400m of flags, and you mean something like "the cap radius of flags should be 400m"
  2. Asset Rules

    too many vehicles at the same time is obviously a mistake, if you give a team 6 strykers, you can guarantee all 6 will be active at the same time more often than not. Having too few infantry relative to the number of vehicles on the map ruins the combined arms aspect, and wouldn't represent realistic or fun combat. Infantry are needed to cap most points, without enough infantry flags can be neglected and the responsibility of the few infantry is too much. You could also have shorter respawn times on vehicles, but that would take away part of the punishment associated with losing vehicles, the downtime. Really I think claimed assets that are locked to certain squads is the best way to go very soon. It's just asinine that you can take a BTR-82, drive around with it for 30 minutes as the squad named "BTR-82", lose it, then johnny rando can solo it around 8 minutes later. It's like if you died and someone got to take squad leader role from you or something. It totally disrupts any semblance of organization, which just makes the game play less enjoyably. Squad thrives on organization, when players do not listen to squad leaders the game is a trash heap, when they do, it's brilliant.
  3. Yeah I agree with the cap being removed entirely. It would make things so much smoother. Right now you have to run re-supplies on a when-needed basis, so you have to get someone to give up what they're doing to go run logistics. If you make it so that a team can just do a handful of runs, regardless of whether or not everything is consumed in the meantime, you can get it out of the way all at once, rather than be interrupted by lack of supplies. This just makes things flow much better.
  4. FOB Mechanics Too Harsh

    The only reason the commander wasn't played was because it was ****ing boring. People want to shoot bad guys, fly around in missile toting jets and helicopters, or blow shit up with a tank. Commander's only responsibility is sit around and explain a generalized grand strategy to the team. You could just double up commander and squad lead's role, and I'd do it every match. Currently there is nothing enforcing that players listen to their squad leaders, and they do, why would they not the commander?
  5. 400 is definitely way too large. It really reduces strategical options on smaller maps.
  6. AK74 vs M4/16 Recoil

    The only reason the AK feels like crap in Squad is not recoil, damage, rate of fire, or any stat like that. It's that its iron sights are so far from the user's face that they're very hard to shoot accurately with. The animation system overhaul promised for Alpha 10 will be changing the player camera a lot, I hope this is one of the things that get addressed.
  7. Lag and no refund

    try buying new hardware
  8. FOB ammo abuse

    kinda reminds of the current rally mechanics I guess if someone dies it does cost tickets at least though
  9. Narva is too small

    Narva's meta will develop more, people will not fall for armour rushes, because you can easily counter it with your own armour. This being said, Narva is quite small, and it does mean that you will pretty much be butting heads with the enemy all match with not much flanking, but this is for better or worse.
  10. Rocket Artillery

    nope, the weapon systems have different goals. The SPG techi doesn't need a high volume of fire and up-time to drive behind a stryker and blast its ass, then run back to base. The Rocket Artillery's goal however is saturation fire to cause enough damage and suppression so that you can soften up the enemy for infantry to advance. With just one barrage, you do such little damage and buy such little time that it's just not an effective weapon. On the other hand, if you could reload the thing a few times before having to drive back to base, you could terrorize an area for a sufficiently long enough such that it would be effective. Also spawning them in pairs would be nice and letting a squad of 2 guys claim them both, if they both had 3 reloads, then you could probably keep up a good barrage for a good amount of time.
  11. Rocket Artillery

    The clumsy aiming is irrelevant, the few seconds lost having to move the thing around and take some test shots is not something that matter. It's not a useful asset because it's sustained fire is non-existent.
  12. Assets and FOB Costs

    except, that's only because the current emplacements are mediocre at best. When the good emplacements enter the game, there will need to be a way to limit them You can do that by a) limiting the number allowed in the map in total b) making them extremely expensive logistically c) making them cost tickets You're suggesting b, but I think that's a mistake because forcing teams to be extremely reliant on logistical support is a mistake because driving a logistics truck is just really boring, and it shouldn't be the case that the team that can tolerate boredom the best should have that much of an advantage.
  13. Al Basrah map balance

    1) The really long bridge that crosses the big north-south river is actually blocked off in the new Basrah 2) INS can get to refinery much much faster than the US, there is no danger of having that rushed as long as INS aren't completely asleep at the wheel. Camping INS is basically impossible now, and is WAY weaker than it was in 9.5. Before you could camp the bridge west of INS main, and be relatively out of range of RPGs, and barely anyone did it.
  14. Assets and FOB Costs

    Thats not true though. Vehicle ticket cost does discourage their use. How many times have you noticed that people were just sending strykers to their graves on Fools Road, Sumari, or Basrah, and that leaving them at home would have been better? The reason why theyre still used is that theyre potentially good enough to justify the risk of tickets. Right now emplacements are too crappy to justify a ticket risk, but theyre going to get a lot better over time. If building a TOW risked tickets I would still do it because thr cost/benefit analysis would show its worth it because theyre that good. True, you could balance these strong emplacements by making them more expensive logistically, but the problem with that is supply runs are boring, and forcing teams to do a ton of logistical work is honestly not very fun game design. I think it would be better if good emplacements cost tickets and required a bit lighter logistical work to function.