Forum Rules 07/06/2016Introduction The Squad Team reserves the right to edit, update, add and remove rules at any time. Applicable rules extend to the PM system. Your PMs are private, but the Squad Team may be informed about unacceptable PM content by the receiving party. Section I: Posting Rules §1 Show Respect This community can only work if we all respect each other. To that end, it is imperative that any time you engage with another user, either directly or indirectly, you show them respect with the content of your post. In particular refrain from flaming, insulting, abusing, taunting, racism, and other similar types of actions towards other forum users. §2 Attitude & Behavior Poor attitude and behavior are the most common ways a negative / unsafe environment is created and perpetuated. As such that kind of behavior will not be allowed on these forums. Please be mindful of this rule when posting personal positions and opinions regarding topics which could be considered contentious in nature. As a rule of thumb, keep your posts civil in nature, and refrain from making posts that are likely to incite arguments and create a negative environment. As a privately hosted web forum we reserve the right to maintain an environment that we are happy the majority of our players are comfortable with. §3 Swearing While we will not strictly moderate every little swear that occurs, please try to avoid excessive bad language. The moderation reserves the right to remove rants and unsuitable content at any time. §4 Illegal Topics
Prohibited topics include, but are not limited to: Piracy, drugs (including cannabis), pornography, religion, racism, sexism, homo/trans -phobic content, videos and images showing violent death or serious injury, ‘spam threads’, hacking & griefing (endorsement thereof), religion, politics, etc. Prohibition may be suspended for some threads if they are found to be suitable by the Moderation (such as scientific debate).
If there is doubt, the Moderation Team can decide whether a topic is considered illegal. §5 Attitude towards Squad and the Development Team
As per §1 and §2, keep in mind to be respectful and reasonable, not only towards all users of the forum, but also towards the Squad Team and towards any ideas and content and the game itself. Criticism is welcome, but if it is not constructive and/or if it is offensive, the Moderation may need to step in. Please refrain from posting if you are upset, angry or drunk, or you may be punished for things you wouldn’t have otherwise written, which is not in anyone's interest. §6 Language & Legibility
Please post only in English. Non-English content (including non-legible content) may be removed. If you see someone posting in another language because s/he apparently does not speak English, please report their post - if you can, you may reply in their language to explain their question, but please do translate their and your message so it can be reviewed by the Moderation. ‘Hiding’ insults in non-English posts will be punished harshly. Posts written largely in ‘leetspeak’ or full of spelling / grammatical errors may be treated like non-English content. This rule does not extend to PMs. §7 Forum structure & Search
Please ensure when posting a new thread, that the thread is located inside the correct forum section. Check all forum section titles to judge where your thread should belong. Threads created in the wrong forum section will be moved or deleted.
Before posting a new thread, please make use of the forum search to find older threads about the same topic. In doubt, it is recommended to rather post in an existing thread, unless that thread is years out of date. However, do not bump old threads without adding a new question / answer / insight that wasn’t in that thread before - use common sense. §8 Thread Titles
Please name your thread appropriately; the subject title should sum up / explain the content in the thread. If you fail to name your thread properly (such as ‘Hey!’ or ‘Check this out!’ or ‘Help!’), we will either rename or lock the topic. Repeated offense may lead to infractions. The practice of using CAPITALS only in your thread title is not allowed and will be edited or the thread will simply be deleted. Strange or abnormal Unicode characters should be excluded from thread titles for the sake of being distracting and unnecessary.
§9 Thread Capitalization
Please ensure that your post is not in all CAPITALS, as this is not allowed. Any threads posted in all caps will subsequently be removed from the forum. Repeated offenses may lead to infractions against your account. This practice is not approved or accepted here.
§10 Images in posts
When posting images, mind the following restrictions:
.gifs will be allowed and may be removed by Staff if deemed necessary.
Maximum size for images is 1280x1024.
Do not include more than ~1 large image per paragraph of text, unless in image collection / announcement threads. Link to further images.
Consider posting thumbnails. You may post a few more images per post if they are reasonably small, the details are for the Moderation to judge. §11 The use of BBCode
It is allowed to use the BBCode in your posts. Over usage is not allowed. You may use the Bold in a reasonable manner but not for the whole text body. You may use the size feature but in a limited reasonable manner. You may not use any of the additional fonts at all. Color may be used to high light a point but again, not for the whole text body. Moderators will be watching for misuse and will edit when required without giving notice. Continued disregard for this rule will result in Moderator action in the form of warnings. Section II: Forum Signatures §1 Signature Dimensions
To avoid clutter, please make sure your signature (if you choose to have one) does not exceed the following size limit: 350x150 pixels. Your signature may consist of images, user bars and text elements, as long as the total size does not exceed 550 x 200 pixels. A small tolerance will be given, but any signature larger than the limit may at any time be deleted without prior warning. If you are not sure whether your signature is acceptable, please PM a moderator. §2 Signature Content
All rules of section 1 fully apply to your signature. We will remove signatures or parts of signatures without notice if they violate the forum rules, and infractions may be given. §3 Animated Signatures
Please refrain from using animated .gifs as signatures, they distract and clutter the forum. Section III: Reporting & Moderation §1 Reporting Posts
There is a Post Report system in place. If you notice a post that violates forum rules, simply use the exclamation mark icon below the users avatar image to send a report to the Moderation. We will then review this post. Your report will not be made public and cannot be linked to your person by anyone outside of the Squad Team. You will not be punished for using the Report system even if the report was false, unless you repeatedly abuse the system to spam it.
Do not ‘report’ posts by replying directly in public to them. In case of spambots, this prompts them to respond in turn, spamming the forum further. This also fuels flame wars and arguments. §2 Reporting Moderators
Moderators are subject to the same forum rules (and some additional rules / exceptions). If you think that a Moderator has treated you unfairly or is otherwise breaking forum rules, please PM the Lead Moderator or any Administrator. Do not accuse Moderators in public, the Squad Team will treat every complaint seriously and it is in our interest to discipline or remove Moderators who are known to break forum rules. §3 Respect Squad Team members and Moderators
Do not ignore or argue against Admin, Moderator or Dev instructions on the forum. If you have a complaint, as per §2, please inform the Team in private. You are expected to follow orders given by the Moderation, Administration and Development Team, and it is necessary for smooth running of the forum to respect their decisions. Being stubborn or ignoring warnings will lead to harsher punishments - however, we do not tolerate Moderator / Admin abuse of power / privileges, so do not hesitate to inform other Team members if you feel treated unfairly. §4 Bans and multiple accounts
If your account is temporarily or permanently banned, do NOT create another account. Bypassing a ban will result in further action, and a permanent ban of all of your accounts.
You are not allowed to have more than one account for any reason. If you share an internet connection with another user who has their own account, it might happen that this account is incorrectly identified as a secondary account - please get in touch with the Moderation or Administration to resolve such issues.
Search the Community: Showing results for tags 'balance'.
Found 16 results
Hi, Before I start, a little bit about me: I am not that active on these forums but I have been playing PR and Squad for a long time (since around PR 0.6) and bought squad on day 1 because I love the game. I searched the forums for this topic but could not find any recent entries. However, as time goes on I find myself wishing that there was an option for servers to scramble teams at the end of a round. This is because sometimes the skill gap/coordination gap between teams can get really out of whack to the point that a team can lose for 3-4 rounds straight quite handily. I must say that in my experience, after 3-4 stomps one of three things happens: - The server empties out gradually - I leave because I'm done with it - The problem actually fixes itself! These three things happen in roughly equal proportions. Now, it is my strong opinion that it is a suboptimal outcome to have persistent imbalance. Let me demonstrate with an example. Earlier today, I joined a server the the start of a round (that's when slots opened up). Immediately you can tell whether you've been put on a team that's getting stomped because the player imbalance at the beginning of a round can be north of 10 players as people that lose are more likely to quit. I took one look at the teams and the people and I knew immediately that this round was going to end badly for my team, so I just left and did something else. To test if I was right, I rejoined the server approximately 30 minutes later. Sure enough, the team that I was initially put on had been pushed back all the way to its mainbase and was in a hopeless situation with around 140 tickets left. Now, some may criticise me and say "well why didn't you lead a squad? why are you whining instead of making a difference?" I squad lead about a third of the time that I am playing depending on whether or not I am confident I will stay the whole round and what my mood is. I think that's more than most people. You can still argue that I have "a responsibility." However, I'd argue that there is a good fix for this problem: Allow servers to enable team scrambling at the end of every round. I always thought this was already an option and servers just didn't use it. I recently learned that this was not an option at all. I strongly believe that server owners should have this option as every round would be a true "fresh start" and that would make the game better. I must say that this problem is exacerbated during a steam sale, but it is present on regular days as well. I know there are downsides. Here are a few: - Clan squads will have a tougher time playing with their friends - Some "team rivalry" or the attitude of "we'll get em next time" will suffer To me, those tradeoffs are worth it. I firmly believe that servers with such an option enabled will see more close games on average than servers without this option. If you are a clan player, I wish I had something better to say to you than "sorry pal, this is gonna screw your squad up," but I'm afraid that's the way the cookie crumbles. At the very least, servers should have this as an option. What does this forum think? Do you agree with me that this is a problem and a phenomenon you've seen occur? Do you agree with the proposed solution?
darricks posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsHello, I know, the game will change, new weapon, artillery, etc, etc... But, i dont think weapon/vehicle update or little "tactical" tweak can really improve the gameplay. I'm playing every night to this game, its my drug. I noticed what currently, the dev ask us to take the flag one by one, which create the following behaviour : -APC rush on malak abad (exemple of rush, but they ask us to rush as far as we can to prevent ennemy to take his first flag so we can take all the one he is missing) -FOB rush on papanov (or anywhere, actually i even see suicide logical trying to put fob right behind the main ennemy base xD) -Using FOB on ennemy rear as teleportation door for taking the ennemy back flag before it can fall back (i know, pr fob will fix it. Did u see pr fob in squad? Not me). -Forcing 70 ppl fighting in 500m when we have 4km² maps and doesnt giving any buff to manoeuvring move (i have csgo for this) -Creating repetitve behaviour to win (i'm using them too, i'm not an hypocryte), i'm not the first one coopérating with an other squad and caping all the flag in fast order so the game is 20 minutes long. -Seriously giving no interest in trying to cut ennemy supply line with big "checkpoint fob", creating "control fob" other big hill (except on malak or logar but, its just fob on top of the flag instead of inside the flag) So, i just took 2 minutes for making this little, absolutely caricatural map of what i'm thinking, let me introduce it. I call it "ho watch, 2 more flags to take at the same times for different game mecanic". It works the following way : U can take all the immediate flag (blue & red) in any orders, but u need at least the first flag to take one of the medium flag, and once u have one of the middle flag, u can take all the others middle flag (white one). Just follow the link between them to understand. Exemple for better understanding : Exemple of "counter rushing reaction" FAQ : "yes bla bla bla, so everybody is going to fight on the red flag on the left". No, if the ennemy is stronger on a flag, he is of course weaker at an other one, so u can win by fleeing him... giving his chance to "guerilla playstyle". U know, the kind of style fight 2 factions of this game are suppose to use!!! "Ppl are still going to put back fob to teleport once they got the medium flag" Yes, but they need to do it 3 times... So its 3 times harder! "Ppl are still going to rush with apc" Like before, they need to do it 3 times... And if for exemple US put all his troops on the right part of the map, INS will just need to do the same... on left.. And the ticket bleed will negate on both side! "Do u know on some map u need to take 2 flags at the same times" Well, i dont consider yes/no is a reponse, u are missing le "but". Le but is currently the third flag. Its also a basic mathematic question. 70/2 = 35. On a 100m² flag's compound = lot of ppl. 70/3 = 23. Its becoming more light, more clear. U can even give a chance to ppl playing in 3 men squad a chance to have an impact on the game. "It already exist in PR" U are talking of this? http://www.realitymod.com/mapgallery/?map=battle_of_ia_drang&mode=gpm_cq&size=64 Yes i agree, and it was cool. Ok lads, i summon the torn of hell, the army of ppl claming its bf-like or not pr like enough. Punish me! And forgive me for my english, ofc...
Eldiablo1989 posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsHi guys! I've played 37 hours of this game as well as playing project reality, and I have to say that this game is nice in quite a few areas, but also needs polishing. One of the areas that, to me, is glaringly obvious, is the current death/medic/revive balance. I think its safe to assume that many people will agree with me that the system is a tad too forgiving right now, and could use a bit more thought.I'd also say that this is a very delicate subject as we are not just talking about simple realism here, we are talking about gameplay; That's what matters most. Now if realism and gameplay can be in harmony that would obviously be ideal but when push comes to shove, gameplay is key. The facts: 80% of wounded soldiers don't die. 99% probably died because of headshots. The current situation: a appeasement of all as the expense of some: casual mode. Proposed solution: "hard core mode" for those looking for more challenging, more tactical gameplay. LONG VERSION Short summary of suggestions: Headshots now do much more damage, and have a chance to kill - see long suggestion notes Players now have "conscious health" (the current system), and "vital health", making it possible but difficult to "insta-kill" someone Players can now be damage for 4 seconds after they go "unconcious". they then become immune to fire as they become incapacitated. Medics now have to deal with a variety of medical situations as players now have lesser or worse conditions regulated by vital health. - see long suggestion notes Being revived now is not a blank check. Reduced conscious health with a 5 minute "cool down" this will please the hardcore players, but keep the game playable, while not making the game unrealistic in making it impossible to kill people.
SpecialAgentJohnson posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsI am actually a little disappointed. Tracked vehicles and auto-cannons are cool and all, but it seems whatever cool weapon with an edge you throw into this game you have to make it "sissy" so that an infantry man has equal chance as a tank or whatever. Apart from leaves blocking absolutely everything for anyone with a scope, marksman or tank, now the sights on the tanks also have this greenish tint+dirt that makes it so difficult to see in for example a forest that -of course- an infantry may be able to get close and kill you anytime. This sucks so bad! You have to remove it! This is becoming vanilla battlefield again. Soon we will see tanks where it takes 10 rounds to kill one infantry man or whatever... I was on a tank in the army (noone gives a shit I know and that's not the point) and I can tell you the sights aren't greenish and they come with wipers and gallons of wiper-fluid for a real mud-wrestling competion. You can detect infantry up to 4 km away with the IR sights no problem. Small rabbits glow like candles in the night km away. This game seems destined to become some Quake-arena style game where people run around like crazy and everyone always has an equal chance of killing anyone else at all time because otherwise you can't have Quake-arena e-sports competitions. I thought it was a military sim. That's what I'd hoped for, but this is not it. This is what I think: If you have a heavy asset -like a tank, or a chopper or whatever- it's going to be really valuable. It's going to be a total killer of infantry-men if you put it into a STRATEGIC LOCATION. There might be 2 or 3 strategic locations where a tank makes all the difference, and if you put it wrong or isn't fast enough to adapt, then you are screwed. But, also, if you lose such a strategic asset then it should cause a MASSIVE ticket loss, so people are really careful about them in the first place. So, if people detect a tank, they tend to keep their head down, and find out, that maybe the ONLY WAY for them to defeat it and bypass it, at all, is to STAY-THE-****-BACK and let the scout class direct the rocket-techies to destroy it with an artillery strike or whatever is available at the moment. This way, balance in the game is not obtained by putting leaves all over the place and funny houses with no windows except towards boring mountain views or whatever, it is obtained by two teams possessing equal amount of firepower -of equal amount of heavy assets and the competence to manage and direct those assets. Map designers need to stop playing Quake. Sorry but this really bothers me. The way it is now, an APC is often completely useless other than for transportation. It can only destroy other vehicles if it can even see through the unrealistic all-obscuring leaves, that is. This is becoming so boring. I bet when Apaches are coming there will be 10.000 stinger missiles just lying around all over the place as well, so the poor infantry-men can defeat it easily still. Conclusion: MILITARY-SIM (doesn't have to be 100% realistic, but should be FUN): *Hold strategic locations on the map, *Heavy assets MAKE A DIFFERENCE *Some assets are NECESSARY for countering other assets (in war, still; all assets types still exist because they expose weaknesses on the other (heavy) asset types) *Teamwork; A team can only win if everyone takes on the required roles, and work together as an "army" *Infantry abundant; Fast respawn timer to compensate for heavy losses, but little penalty for dying (doesn't have to be super-realistic, but more-so than this) *Totally fun, with an element of dynamic strategy to it QUAKE-ARENA-STYLE GAME (that come by the dozen): *All assets are equally useful/worthless, *No place on the map is ever better to hold than any other, *Teamwork; A team can survive whatever role anyone takes on. *Totally boring and one-dimensional game-style without any advanced strategy thinking. Games of this type already by the dozen (or hundreds) Which direction do you want this game to take? I opt for MILITARY-SIM. I realize this post seems a little harsh but if this continues I am out. Play some Arma or some shit. Never tried it though. It would be a shame since this is the game with the BEST POTENTIAL sim-wise I have ever played. Thank you for your time.
Hello. I'm really happy with the A9 changes so far but the HAT kit really breaks the balance on some layouts. One of the best examples is Sumari AAS with the new Stryker .50cal IFV which costs the team 35 tickets each and can be detroyed with only one hit by a HAT. Thats not really a problem on most of the maps with decent view range because its almost impossible to hit (even a stationary) target past the 200m mark with the HAT kit (very high projectile/bullet drop). On Sumari with all the fog and close quarter combat its a whole different story and with 80 players (20 players per HAT kit) there are 2 HAT kits available for the Insurgent forces which makes it even worse So my recommendation is to leave all the vehicles at main base and try to win the old fashioned way (btw. the same applys to Fools Road AAS)
Every map on Squad seems to be designed so that every spot that could otherwise be a good firing position always has a bloody tree or grass patch hiding the visibility or the grass is always a little to high for the sniper to see anything and so on, to keep the game balanced ALWAYS!!! There are no choke points and you never ever have your back safe against a wall etc. I find this both boring and unrealistic. Reality is often uneven. My suggestion is then to also supply uneven maps for us who prefer this kind of gameplay. Instead of at all times striving for two equally sized teams, in order for the gameplay to still be balanced I suggest that for example the team with the better defensive positions etc get to hold a lesser amount of player slots. So, for instance, if one team is supposed to defend the caches with very favorable defensive positions, then maybe that team could maybe get like 20 players and the other team 40 players. I find this kind of gameplay to be much more fun. It is so annoying to always creep up to that nice sniping position only to find some annoying developer put that silly plant there just preventing you to see anything. Also this annoying fog. Playing in fog is not fun actually. So, that is my suggestion. I am not saying remake all the old maps, I am just saying: Give us also this kind of gameplay style for us who crave it. Thank you for this otherwise fun game.
The US and Russian factions usually have the upper hand against the Militia, for one simple reason. Vehicles. Say what you will about the M4A1 or woodland EMR, but the HMMWV and BTR-80 are the game-changers when it comes to fighting conventional factions. So, how to address this dilemma? Uh... BRDM-2 anyone? Implemented right, the BRDM-2 would help to balance the Militia faction while retaining asymmetry and realism. Compared to the BTR-80, it has the same 14.5 mm KPVT as its primary armament (making the devs' job a bit simpler), while having somewhat thinner armor and a smaller carrying capacity. I would give it the same ticket value and respawn time as the CROWS and set the limit to one BRDM, though perhaps two on vehicle-centric maps like Yehorivka; technicals should still be the primary source of vehicular firepower. Furthermore, the BRDM-2 opens the devs to a world of variants, including ones mounting anti-air or anti-tank missiles. BRDM-2s have been used for decades in conflicts all over the world, most recently in the War in Ukraine, a region where the Militia faction is hypothetically set.
I have been experiencing something kind of worrisome lately while playing Squad. When the Open Alpha started over a year ago, 3 out of 10 games had people giving away FOB positions at the beginning of the match. The last 3 rounds I have played had very obvious traitors revealing FOBS and team killing then leaving the server. I want to know what the Dev team has planned to keep this from happening in the future. As of right now, this game is completely ruined by this.
NikolaiLev posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsAnd a question I would couple with it: is the Medic class too critical? As it stands now, Medic is arguably the absolutely most vital class to any squad of any faction. But is this really desireable? As I'm aware, most rifle groups in reality don't actually have medics, being elements assigned on the platoon level. And even when they appear, there's usually only one of them. Now while medics are vital to keeping soldiers alive, I feel that in Squad they are not only overrepresented, but too critical for the functioning of a squad. Consider the plight of someone who simply wants to play as a rifleman. With 5/8 of the non-SL members being asked to fill crucial fire support and medical roles, there aren't that many who would get to choose to be a simple rifleman, and a lot of squad leaders will kick you if you refuse to at least take the optics class. As it stands right now, some factions' medic classes get inferior guns (though some don't), and don't get any offensive grenades. A common order from SL I see is "just take medic, you get the same gun" and yet later the medic is demanded to stay at the back of the squad, never engaging offensively. This makes sense, but not all players enjoy that kind of playstyle. And this isn't just a problem with Medics; it's also a problem of Riflemen vs. fire support classes; grenadiers, AT riflemen, marksmen and autoriflemen are all vital assets to the squad, and you get several in abundance. The end result is that not many people are allowed to play the simple rifle+grenade setup of a normal grunt. And I feel that's kind of a bummer. How can this be addressed? Several ways, actually. Simply reducing the amount of medics to 1 and fire support classes to 2 would do the trick, but I think we can do better than that. Riflemen tend to carry less weight, not lugging around medical gear or heavy guns and ammunition, so it would make sense for them to move slightly faster and have a higher total stamina. It would also make sense for them to be able to carry more magazines and fragmentation grenades, which would give them an edge over non-rifleman classes, making them valuable assets to a squad leader. Finally, it might make some sense for riflemen to be the only ones to get e-tools, considering the aforementioned factor of not needing all that load-bearing space to carry medical equipment or munitions. That said, I'm not sure how many soldiers in real life actually are asked to carry shovels. Further, there's a simple but somewhat radical change we can make to make medics not so absolutely vital: all classes can "revive" a squadmate using CPR. But it would take much longer (anywhere from 10 seconds or more) and would still require the man be stabilized with bandages, of which normal classes only have two. Plus, CPR would only revive, not heal, so medics would definitely still be extremely useful, but players not wanting to play medic wouldn't utterly handicap the squad. I feel this would provide a more fun game. So, what do you think we can do to enable players to play as Riflemen without kneecapping the efficacy of their squad?
Arduras posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsRight now, any map the US has a CROW they can utterly dominate. Many accounts of foliage no rendering at long range, different geometry so they can spot people from long range. Not to mention it's a 50 cal with a long range zoom. On a specific map (the one with north/south DC, forgot the name) The US utterly massacres militia by hitting the hills east of DC and having 50 cal overwatch over the entire map as far as the C column of grids. This is ridiculously brutal and nobody can get anywhere near the hmmvw to hurt it. When we do hurt it, the CROW takes 5 RPGs and still doesn't go down (probably a repair station nearby since it's the meta to superfob those hills to the east and completely destroy the entire west 2/3rds of the map) Can we please balance this? Either fix the rendering, reduce the zoom, or make it worth 30 tickets. It's far more effective than the BTR in just about any situation other than transporting troops, no reason it can't have the cost associated. edit: the main issue is getting shot from a kilometer or more away through all kinds of foliage (and solid cover) from something you can't even see (even with optics most of the time, you just see the tracers) it's just brutal on a whole other level and contributes to the phrase "Playing US is easy mode"
So, there's a suggestion thread but I want to moreso hold a discussion before I go forwarding ideas because I'm not actually sure if it needs a buff. Let me preface by saying that right now, Scout is my favorite class. I love that I can be free of SL responsibility while still directing fire and finding enemies; it's very satisfying. That said, I feel like I'm a liability because I'm not a medic, a machinegunner or a rifleman with an optic. With a small magazine and no selective fire, the SKS makes for a pretty lousy weapon; not to mention its mediocre ammunition count! I can already see improving its ammo load, giving it as many total rounds as an ordinary rifleman. There's also the possibility of more grenades. But what I'd really like to see, if it's not already implemented (and it's not noticeable if it is) is: giving the scout a more concealable outfit, making him faster, giving him more stamina, or a combination thereof. That said, if the Scout is already seen as a very useful class, then any buffs would be undesireable. So, discuss away!
As a consistent player of the medic class in SQUAD I keep wondering, does the Militia faction's medic really deserve to get stuck with the AKS-74U? It feels a bit unfair given that for every other faction the medic is granted access to a full strength assault rifle (albeit generally one without optics - except US which is fine). Does anyone else feel like me in that it would be a lot more fun to play as the medic for Militia if the class was given, say the AMD-65, the same weapon used by the insurgent medic? Or do you prefer the AKS-74U? If so why? What are the thoughts?
Hello. I've already make some posts about Russian equipment,but it turns into holywars,so it's makes no sense. The reason,why I create this thead: This game is aimed for reality,instead of just pewpewhavingfun.So I think they should stay as much as possible closer to current TOE and Structures. Some Nations doesn't have some specialisations.Like - we don't use shotguns use Bolt-Action Sniper rifles in Army,only SF operators have it. You anyway can't balance weapons,vehicles etc,etc,etc... at least because of their characteristics. PR's conventional kits was copy/pasted.The main diffirence between it - diffirent 3d models. But I have some ideas.I will stay around my experience,and expecially - this http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/1661-the-weapons-thread/?p=160666 Idea 1. But first - fast facts about RAF. Usually(99%) soldiers doen't have optics or red-dot.Only VDV uses some optical sight,but there is reason - their squad have only 5 dismouts,instead of 7,they cannot have SVD per squad.So - VDV Platoon around 20 man,while Motor-Infantry is around 30 man. Typical rifle squad have such weapon,which many western military have at Platoon level.Like PKM is 8kg 7.62 Machinegun,which used by crew of 2.RPG also used by crew of 2.Most infantry squad have Sniper with SVD. Disposable launcher used very wide.RPG-26 weighs only 3kilograms,and effective maximum fire range of 250 meter.But effective range of them is around 100 meters,because of trajectory(Slow start speed and weight of rocket makes their deal). There is also exist another type of disposable lauchers - Assault Grenades and Reactive Flamethrowers.Assault Grenades,like RShG1 and RShG2 used by Army,FlameThrower used by NBC forces.But many Brigades have at least 1 NBC Company inside them and they're usually work together with Motor-Rifles or VDV. Instead of optic - use limited riflemans with RPG-26 or RSHG2.Also increace quantity of SVDs. You will tell me,it would be unfair,but I suggest use it instead of HE grenade.So,still US rifleman will have at least one. Squad Roles: -Squad Leader -Medic -Rifleman(Default) -Rifleman(RPG26 instead of Hand Grenade) -Rifleman(RSHG2 instead of Hand Grenade) Fire Support Roles: -Grenadier(2) -RPK gunner(2) -RPG gunner-Light loadout(1) //PG-7VL and OG-7V -SVD gunner(1,avaible after 7 mans reached) Team Roles -PKP/PKM gunner(Some quantity) -RPG gunner-Heavy Loadout //Tandems and VL??(Counts as PRs HAT) -Flamethrower //Equipped with RPO-A Thermobaric Reactive Flamethrower.It will be unique weapon of RAF factions.Effect should be like 122mm arty shell explode,but without fragmentation. Idea 2.If there is optics already created - why just don't create VDV subfaction?It's like US Marines - they have some diffirent equipment,diffirent vehicles,diffirent purposes.Almost everything already ingame.But... this is light infantry,they doen't have any heavy support.Their IFV - BMD-2,have similar armor to BTR-80. The only possible vehicles is BMD-2/4 2S25 Sprut(Self-Propelled 120mm gun),Short-Base 4x4 Kamaz Truck,BTR-D and BTR80. Well,thats all... If you're don't trust me - I'll keep Ground Forces Combat Manual(part 3),you may read it by yourself,well if you know Russian. http://militera.lib.ru/regulations/0/g/2005_bu3.pdf And please - If you're still thing I'm wrong,please find proofs first. Edit: So I think about kit loadout. First off,I must explain it's structure,as well as combat attachments. Forces,which Devs aimed are Motor Rifles,aka Motostrelki.This forces is an infantry,which primary uses APCs(BTR) and IFV(BMP) as transport,with support of tanks,artellery and short/medium range anti-air vehicles. Russian army pretty much unified over structure,so they also should works with Marines and Air Assault(BMP or BTR mounted) units with a very little changes.But I will stay around some unknown Motor Rifle(3 Rifle Battalions,1 Tank Battalion,1 AA Battary(Of diffirent vehicles),1 Howitzer Battary). Vehicles like Tigr or Rys' are special purpose vehicles,they primary used by SF. Rifle Battalion have inside 3 Companies,1 recon platoon,1 arty platoon,1 weapon platoon(AGS(Primary) and/or HMGs) and 1 ATGM platoon(if this battalion mounted on BTRs).So they have their independed reconance and fire support unit. Company consist of 3 platoons and HQ.They might have their own HMG team.They also might have the 4th platoon,a temporary attached teams from diffirent units or their own battalion: AGS team,ATGM team,HMG team,Flamethrowers,Engeeners etc etc. Platoon have 3 squad,squads is same. IRL Squad is: 1)Squad Leader 2)Junior rifleman 3)MG gunner 4)Assistant 5)RPG-7 Gunner 6)Assistant 7)Rifleman(old type) or Sniper(new type). 8,9)2 Crewmans 10)Platoon leader of Platoon sergeant as vehicle commander. And now again fast facts: 1)Every squad by default have PKM/PKP at new type units and old style have RPK74. 2)Every squad have RPG-7 as Squad Anti tank weapon. 3)Modern type of squad have snipers with SVD rifle. 4)Besides this - Russian army actively uses Reactive Grenades(Ruchnaya Protivotankovaya Granata - RPG),they might be used by any soldier.But meanwhile RPG-7 is a Grenate Launcher(Ruchnoy Protivotankovyi Granatomet - also reads as RPG),might be used only by trained solder.Assault grenades are reactive grenades with a thermobaric warhead agaist soft skinned targets and infantry. 5)Optics on AK are rare.Very rare.As well as Holo sights. 6)Reactive flamethrowers.They used only by special type of forces - Chemical Defence forces.But usually they work together with Motor-Rifles,so makes sence to add this to game.If someone doesn't know what is it,please seach for RPO-A or RPO-M. For those,who don't want to read my sensible scribbles,skip it and read idea. Idea is about Kit Loadout - as you can see above,some weapon going to be rare today,but still used. So my i think,that kits should be like this. Squad Roles: 1)SL(No optic) 2)Rifleman(Unlimited) 3)Rifleman AT(Reactive Grenade or Assault Grenade,limited) 4)Medic(Limited) 5)Breacher(Of course screw that KS-23,TNT FTW) 6)Engineer 7)Crew Support Support Roles: PKM/PKP gunner RPG gunner Grenadier Sniper/Marksman(SVD) Team roles: Rifleman(Optic) RPK gunner HAT(RPG-7 with PG-7VR or maybe RPG27 grenade) Flamethrower MANPADs operator Recon/Observer(VSS Val short range silent sniper rifle,instead of BLUFOR long range sniper) as for counter this - just add more optics for M4 for BLUFOR.This make gameplay much more assymetrical,but still I think it's still going to be fun.
YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsDon't you think it's a little funny how the Russians got 3 confirmed vehicles with one being a tracked APC with a 14.5mm, a wheeled APC with a 14.5mm, and a FLIPPING TRACKED APC WITH A 30MM CANNON! And the Americans get a 4-wheeled armored car. Will we see US vehicles that can counter these? The least we can get are TOW launchers.
CIAAOOO everyone, i'm sorry but i had to do that as soon as i'm new to the forum, i searched for the topic before asking (?) (discussing?) this thing: the question is... Will you developers add a system\ gameplay feature to allow the material for building FOBS to be carried from logistic trucks or vehicles? i know the game is pre alpha as i'm quite er... addicted to this game from the beginning,last year,i just wanted to know someting related from developers but ALSO what peoples would think about that. Love this game gogogoooooooooo best game eveeeer!!!! P:S. i played and still play PR so i know what i'm talking about...oh and pls don't shout at me for my bad english i'm italian=)
Morbo513 posted a topic in Feedback & SuggestionsAsset squads: Rather than relying on the honour system and policing by admins to ensure the right squad gets their pertinent assets, there should be a system by which there are pre-existing asset squads based on the assets available. Players wanting to crew these assets must join the squad, and the squad leader can allow access to their assets to either specific members of other squads, or entire other squads, by clicking and dragging the vehicle's map symbol (Or from a list of assets) to a player or squad's name or their map icon. Having access to these assets would allow you to take the pilot or crewman kit/class (Assuming you're going with this system), with the asset squad ONLY allowed access to the pilot/crewman kit. This would both prevent players in asset squads from neglecting their assets, but also allow for Mechanised Infantry squads and whatnot. Pros: Named asset squads enforced by game instead of admins Prevents theft of assets Allows non-asset-specific squads to use assets with no confusion or argument Enforces use of asset when in pertinent squad Neutral: "First-come, first-serve" basis Asset spawns: "Pool" system: This somewhat ties in with the assets squads thread I made, please read it: http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/72-vehicle-assignment-to-squads-sl-mic-enforcement-squad-mutinyreorganisation/ Basically, a given asset squad will have a pool of available vehicles that the SL can call in at any time, with a reasonable delay between calling them in and them appearing on the map. Once this pool is depleted, no more of that type of vehicle or asset can be called in, so it's up to the squad leader as to what they commit to the battle at what time. There would be restrictions; At lower playercounts, certain assets and numbers of them would be off-limits. There would be a default value which could be customised by server admins (Applied to all maps). This would prevent tanks rolling around when there are 16 players on the server. The SL would not be allowed to requisition any more vehicles than the current number of members in the squad can crew (Rounded down). Infantry squads would have a pool of utility/transport vehicles at their disposal This could be added to with a time or flag-cap delay system sort of like those of PR. I'd like to go a lot more in depth with this, which will probably happen as discussion goes on, if there even is one :v Pros: Gives the asset squad more control over their assets Mitigates the damage possible by griefing and baserape Allows for lower playercounts on heavier asset enabled/larger maps without them being unbalanced No need for ticket cost: The loss of the vehicle is a loss enough. Neutral: Emphasises importance of asset conservation More realistic Cons: Hard to implement? Less experienced players may "waste" assets "Points" system: This is sort of an extension of the pool system - It would function the same, but there are two additional parts: 1: The asset squad would have to earn teamwork points to "purchase" assets beyond their most basic ones (All of which there would still be a limited number) Eg. an APC squad is able to acquire BRDMs, BTR-60s and BTR-90s. At the start of the round, they can only call in their BRDMs, until they have collectively acquired a certain number of teamwork points, at which stage they'd be able to call in their heavier assets. Pros: Encourages effective use of initial assets, as well as non-combat support roles such as transporting teammates and building FOBs, setting the team up for later-game Neutral: Diminishes viability of rushing Escalation of force throughout the round - More infantry focused in the beginning, assets more common mid-game Cons: Could be exploited or unbalanced depending on how teamwork points are awarded and how it ties in to the maps and assets in question. 2: Think Warhammer; Each asset is assigned a value. Depending on the playercount, and if applicable, as defined by the server owner(s), each team would have a maximum number of assets they can field at one time determined by these values. It should be balanced so that every squad can have at least one of their assets in-play. Pros: Prevents the use of overwhelming numbers of assets Neutral: Requires more inter-squad communication, cooperation and planning Cons: If asset squads are allowed only crewman/pilot kits, this would cause problems if the cap is reached Traditional system: A certain number of each asset are spawned on the map initially, with more potentially awarded by capture of certain flags, or time-delayed spawns. When a certain asset from this pool is destroyed, it respawns after a certain amount of time. Certain assets do not respawn at all. Pros: Probably something supported by default Neutral: Practically infinite numbers of assets except in the case of those which do not respawn. Not very realistic Cons: Vulnerable to stealing (Linked thread above proposes fix for this) and griefing Balance: Now it's down to the nitty-gritty. There is a pretty fine line between the number and types of assets being fun and being down-right tiring to fight against. I criticise PR a lot and that's not going to change here: The second-biggest problem I had with the changes in 1.0+ was the asset respawn rate and the sheer numbers that could be on the map at one time. It is no fun fighting one BTR less than 2 minutes after you destroyed the last one, which was less than 5 minutes after the previous one. In my opinion, heavier assets like tanks, heavy AFVs like Bradleys, and Attack helicopters should be rare due to how powerful they are compared to an infantry squad especially when they have thermal imaging. The consequences of destroying them should also be much greater, as in PR it didn't have much effect, only a little breathing room til you were up against the next one. This seems contradictory to the "Pool" system I laid out earlier, but the fact is in PR this would be a perpetual cycle until the end of the round. With the proposed system, you know the enemy only have a limited number of the assets they are using and if you destroy all of them, you won't have to worry about them again. So, for example, the enemy team have 4 BTRs in their pool. They could employ all four of them at once to break through your team's lines, it'd be an intense shitstorm, but if your team manages to destroy them, that threat is entirely neutralised. Alternatively they could spread them out, using them to supplement their infantry's firepower and mobility, be conservative and try to keep them in play. SL mic enforcement: The purpose of this would basically be to help emphasise the importance of communication. The game would check if a player has a mic and has it enabled, if not they aren't allowed to take any leadership positions. It is possible to lead by text and map markers, but it really doesn't compare to verbal communication. Squad-squad communication also becomes an issue without a mic. This could be an option for server admins, on by default. Squad mutiny/reorganisation: Mainly for when a squad leader is AFK or is doing a very poor job. A squad member can call a vote which requires a unanimous "yes" to demote the SL. He would still remain in the squad, but cannot return to the SL position until either after a certain period of time has passed, or the new squad leader promotes him back to that position. As for reorganisation, well, I just said it - The squad leader would be able to assign a member of the squad as SL if they have to go AFK or feel they should step down. This would prompt a yes/no from the squad member in question. Useful for when a previous SL returns from being afk, or having crashed or otherwise being ejected from the squad, without having to empty and refill it again. If players in the squad do not vote, it requires a unanimous yes from those that have, with a minimum of 49% of the squad's members. Or something. Players can also be banned from squads with a vote initiated by the squad leader. Again requires a unanimous decision, except from the player in question. Kicking players from a squad can also be done by the SL and they would not be able to rejoin for another 30 seconds. Players who haven't been in a squad for a long time (<3-5 minutes) cannot initiate votes.