Jump to content

40mmrain

Member
  • Content count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 40mmrain

  • Rank
    Platoon Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

546 profile views
  1. tactical blind fire

    Why would it not be serious? Its a useful tactic in very close range engagements. Masters of blind fire would have a serious upperhand clearing those apartments in Al Basrah.
  2. How will body armor work?

    that's a joke right? You're saying something really stupid to be funny?
  3. Camoflague nets

    they would be nice. Concealing habs is pretty important and something to help break up their dramatic silhoeutte would be a good use of hammers. Doubley so when we have air vehicles.
  4. "Ammo FOBs" Promote Unhealthy Gameplay

    Skul is right that the game is over dependent on fobs and logis as is. Because logis are so slow, fobs need to be so far from each other, a logi can only supply one per trip, and probably more reasons, fobs are very few and logis very vulnerable. Obviously the team with better fobs wins a fight for the flag, and there are so few logis/fobs and some are so easy to kill, directly attacking them.is overly efficient. This renders the game over centralized around FOB and logi destroying. Hell Ive played games on fools road where it feels im in complete control of the outcome of the game by just camping the us main with a btr for logis, no matter how bad my teammates are. Helicopters in the future will do a massive service to rectify this. Armed logis like.. say a humvee with a .50 cal, 300 supplies in the back and 3 seats would also help. Decreasing the radius between fobs would be nice too.
  5. Special Forces

    Sof in squad would be easy to implement. Just have an asset that a squad can claim in the same way they can a tank. This turns their kits into SOF kits which have goodies like more and better optics, suppressors, the option to carry enemy weapons, more explosives, higher stamina, and other bonuses and assets. The squad can then act as recon infantry, FAC, artillery spotters, behind enemy line disruptors, etc.
  6. That m240B better deal some significant damage!

    Kind of blows my mind that people would ever think weapons kill fast enough in this game. 7.62×51 does like 85-89 damage to center mass right now. Full health targets bleed out in seconds, non full health targets die in 1 ****ing laser accurate bullet.
  7. it sounds like you've just described all of the reasons how the commander role was a failure as a design feature. Unessential, imbalanced, not rewarding.
  8. not a failure? I guess it's a matter of opinion, but are you really being genuine here? The role was completely unoccupied for the large majority of the time. I went into youtube and selected the first 10 videos of PR that appeared to public matches and only 2/10 even had the commander role occupied. Isnt 2/10 a pretty bad rate for anyone to even use the feature, let alone use it right? Imagine a game where only Squad Leaders were used 1/5th of the time? the videos in question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0q2iCCFmsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW1iEGAfpco https://youtu.be/yvZlDtS2M_4 https://youtu.be/-EV0X__oPcc https://youtu.be/WOkgUU9W5MU https://youtu.be/8Tm0xA9Fbpk https://youtu.be/uCZhocpyzPw https://youtu.be/bT-rdoCxmRk - 2 rounds, 1 had a commander, 1 didn't https://youtu.be/JagffbUsNPM
  9. It seems you completely misunderstood, or did not read, the post I made. The Commander would not have the power to restrict resources, control assets, or punish you for not moving to a certain area. Where in my post did I suggest a Commander would be able to do all of these things? The only power the Commander would have if I had my way is that he can dictate where FOBs can be built in the map. You as a squad leader are not forced to build FOBs, and If you do choose to you get to choose which of the markers that the commander has made you want to build at. In what way would this make immediate decisions impossible? FOBs can not be made "immediately", you need to actually gather logistics and then go to the location. In what way would this make communication between squad leaders pointless? How could the commander have the power to prevent two squad leaders from collaborating? You are constructing a straw man to beat on, and that's it. What bothers me the most is that you seem to think it is okay that the Squad Leader role already has power over his squad members, but somehow not the commander. Explain to me how the game becomes "unenjoyable" because you are in a "place you did not choose" when this is exactly what SLs impose on their subordinates? It is the same paradigm. What also baffles me about your thinking is that you claim that "Squad is about squad leaders and communication/cooperation between squads" but a commander's entire purpose is to INCREASE cooperation between squads. Squad members work together in a squad, in part because their squad leader is ordering them achieve a common goal. SLs in squad currently completely do their own thing. With a commander coordinating them, the level of teamwork and cooperation will increase, not decrease.
  10. I think what would be more likely is there will be an assistant gunner. You're right that the GPMG has little place in Squad right now but consider the following changes that could make it relevant 1) Server size is going to increase to 100 at the very least. With more infantry per side, more specialized teams become tactically relevant. There may even be platoon level of infantry organization in the future(?) which would mean a small MG team supporting a 2-3 squad sized attacking force would be efficient 2) The suppression effect is getting significantly changed to be more powerful. Right now suppression in Squad is a mere visual effect, however recent comments from the developers that I've seen seem to imply that they intend to implement some real penalties for being suppressed, and if I had to guess the caliber of weapon suppressing the enemy will be proportional to the penalty size. 3) Fireteam organization is a coming feature. Right now it's difficult to organize your squad into multiple elements, with fireteam designation it will be much easier to organize your squad into having a machine gun team as part of it. 4) Map size is going to get larger on average over time. Currently in Squad it's the case that an M249 with a magnifying optic would be sufficient for almost all engagement ranges but as more larger maps like Gorodok and Kohat Toi enter the fray the GPMG's longer reach will be relevant Also I think subtle changes that might come in the future could make the GPMG more relevant to Squad. Changes such as weakening of rally points/FOBs and map objectives being bigger, which would make the game less about getting right on top of the enemy to actually defeat them. Or properly functioning optics, and body armour to make larger calibers more relevant. I think with those changes we wouldnt need to have the GPMG kit have all of the assistant gunner's tools stuffed into the kit. A rifleman kit with a tripod, extra belts and a pair of binoculars to spot would do the job.
  11. interesting, I only startedplaying during the 0.9x days, so I was unaware. It seems though by the wording that the commander was the only one capable of even placing the FOB though? I would wager some of the reasoning for squad leaders gaining the ability to place FOBs was that if the commander was responsible for actually placing them, that's literally all he would do, and the game would be like a commander-ferrying simulator. with my proposal we could still have a top-down strategic coordination, but the squad leaders would still be responsible for actually constructing the FOBs, which wouldn't disrupt the current flow of the game.
  12. techies, counter to a BTR or Stryker? Do you know the definition of the word? They are not and never should be counters. At best they can gang up on enemy armour, or severely outplay them. They are checks at best and "buffing" vehicles is a shitty way to approach balance in a game like Squad, when options like modifying the number of vehicles or tickets per side, and designing maps and game modes with asymmetry in mind. Also, what static AT? The static SPG is crap. It has no way to elevate or depress, and is completely static. The proposition that you could find a position to put it that actually has a decent field of fire and isnt a death trap for the operator is next to zero.
  13. what exactly is does "keep focus on squads not on coc" mean can you explain how you think a commander as described in my post would negatively affect the game?
  14. Im really not sure what you mean by this. Playing as an SL is vaguely like playing an RTS already I would argue. And what exactly does it mean to deal with teamwork in absolutes? Teamwork is already forced onto you. You can't make spawnpoints without having one or two squad members crawl up your ass.
×