Jump to content
ShaunOfCathay

On the topic of SVBIEDs

Recommended Posts


SVBIEDs and VBIEDs, acronyms for (suicide) vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, have been used by unconventional fighting forces since the 20th century. And while SVBIEDs and suicide tactics in general have been perhaps the greatest controversy of modern military history and strategy, increasingly so in the current War on Terror, they are nonetheless an important aspect of asymmetrical warfare worthy of study and depiction. In fact it is depicted in Squad's predecessor, and it is the most powerful weapon available to insurgents (not to mention that it is uber fun to use). Simply the existence of the bomb car or Big Red or the Gary asset on a map can put a tank crew on edge, who are watching, waiting, listening for that distinctive roar of the engine. The mere sight of a Gary to a pinned down insurgent rouses something deep inside a PR vet's heart, compelling him to leap up and cheer on with shouts of 'ALLAHU ACKBAR". And when that driver, holding down the W key like no tomorrow, comes bearing down on the fleeing armour, the players inside both vehicles know that it will only end in two fiery ways. For there is no more of a enjoyable sight than  a SVBIED blowing up the armour pinning down your cache and no greater relief than to escape unscathed in a tank as the burning wreck of a Gary disappears into the retreating horizon. 


Thus, it is why I am so disheartened and disappointed to hear that a feature and weapon so unique and fun "that it is PR's roots" will not be included in SQ especially when  it is a feature that is a no brainer for insurgency mode, and one that we were led to believe was to be included. I've read through the locked thread and don't feel I am satisfied with the answers. So why? Why is the most fun aspect of insurgency mode not being included in the game? 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only guess you were in that /k/ thread.

I expect the thread to be locked because of the whole "Oh, we don't talk about things after the first thread was locked" sort of policy but I was extremely disappointed to not see some proper reasons instead of being told something along the lines of "If it's such a good idea then mod it in yourself" when the rest of the thread was a very good discussion.

I can't imagine the insurgents having a very viable chance engaging vehicles beyond SPGs or maybe ATGMs if they're implemented to combat the technologically advanced Blufor vehicles. Man portable launchers can only do so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't dare offend the feelings of terrorists. More safe to just make another battlefield cookie cutter FPS than use interesting things from PR. That would be crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rybec said:

I can only guess you were in that /k/ thread.

I expect the thread to be locked because of the whole "Oh, we don't talk about things after the first thread was locked" sort of policy but I was extremely disappointed to not see some proper reasons instead of being told something along the lines of "If it's such a good idea then mod it in yourself" when the rest of the thread was a very good discussion.

I can't imagine the insurgents having a very viable chance engaging vehicles beyond SPGs or maybe ATGMs if they're implemented to combat the technologically advanced Blufor vehicles. Man portable launchers can only do so much.


Uh, not sure which thread you mean by that, but ok.

But yes, I am pretty disappointed, I have a feeling that this is only one aspect of the bigger issue of controversy, which could very well be its own thread. Even then, SVBEIDs are so iconic and fun that I feel any controversy would have no bearing on it, especially as SQ is crowdfunded and answers to no publisher. 

I agree, especially if there are going to be maps along the lines of Fallujah and al Basrah where Blufor armour reigns free in open ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol a fun read and i agree whole heartedly. although it hasnt been said by a dev afaik, i believe there wont be bomb cars or garys due to political correctness :( disappointing, i know.

still though have my fingers crossed that the devs will change their mind for bomb cars and such as i imagine that once vehicle code is working nice and smooth it cant possibly that much more work to make a car or truck or something explode in a fiery epic allahu ackbar explosion. so i highly doubt that it will take too much development resources to make. indeed, it would take so little effort to do that not making a bomb car--which can use the exact same vehicle model as an insurgent car--has to be a political decision. oh and "bad publicity"? no such thing. barbara streisand effect anyone?

but yea, i was really hoping for squad to take bomb cars to the next level, im talking some mad max syrian war bomb cars!

ovu6ncjrqwdrp4k3ywrp.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg

10924726_740412059400033_807140899079436

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShaunOfCathay said:


Uh, not sure which thread you mean by that, but ok.

But yes, I am pretty disappointed, I have a feeling that this is only one aspect of the bigger issue of controversy, which could very well be its own thread. But even then, SVBEIDs are so iconic and fun that I feel any controversy would have no bearing on it, especially as SQ is crowdfunded and answers to no publisher. 

I agree, especially if there are going to be maps along the lines of Fallujah and al Basrah where Blufor armour reigns free in open ground. 

Well I was just in a discussion somewhere else not fifteen minutes ago referencing the very same thread and quote.

 

PR maps that had open ground like Fallujah (where we have a confirmation that development of that map is underway) had the APCs sitting as far away as possible firing from a considerable distance where the only viable way to counter that was to scoot a VBIED around their flanks while they weren't looking your way. IEDs were out of the question because that relies on the APCs going to where you want them to (which was anywhere but the open fields) and launchers would at the very most disable targets if you got lucky.

VBIEDs are a non-controversial topic where they do not represent or affiliate with any organization. What would seemingly be more controversial is that American soldiers in the game are killed (in a game with a very large American playerbase) and if that isn't cause to halt the whole project I don't see why a simple concept like VBIEDs would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yukari_Akiyama said:

Can't dare offend the feelings of terrorists. More safe to just make another battlefield cookie cutter FPS than use interesting things from PR. That would be crazy.

I'm not perfect, I get frustrated about certain decisions the developers may make and sometimes I even express them in poor form. I have recently been privy to an internal discussion that it is this kind of approach, that destroys the will to communicate with the community and discuss their plans and the logic that guides them.

Its fine to disagree, and I find the original topic a reasonable introduction to this discussion.

Lets all persist in a respectful tone as it will

  1. Be more likely to get an authoritative answer from the devs, since they arent being implicitly or explicitly berated.
  2. Continue to encourage developer interaction with the rest of the community, on various other topics that might be critical to other people.

---

As for the VBIEDs, one of the reasons I wouldn't include them is because certain countries might ban the sale of my game. I dont know if thats the case, but it shows there can be legitimate reasons, ones that aren't an issue for free-mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually..  no..  as per usual you guys read largely what you want to read in these situations. 

Here are the facts. 

Suicide bombers : We are generally completely against this and don't plan on ever seeing them. (99.99% no)

VBIEDs: Not in our immediate plans for our core game but I don't see why they aren't something that could show up in some form. (75% likely if squad does well and achieves it's core goals (and insurgents become a big part of core game in future)) (Caveat: I can already see the insurgents as the most underplayed faction but we aim to give them some teeth in the future. Just not Suicide bombers)

IEDs: Already on the way. 

 

That's the final word.. no more speculative threads. 

 

PS,  If you knew how much I love asymmetry you would have no doubts the insurgents will be a fun faction when we finally get around to maturing their mechanics. I designed the original PR militia faction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unfrail said:

I'm not perfect, I get frustrated about certain decisions the developers may make and sometimes I even express them in poor form. I have recently been privy to an internal discussion that it is this kind of approach, that destroys the will to communicate with the community and discuss their plans and the logic that guides them.

Its fine to disagree, and I find the original topic a reasonable introduction to this discussion.

Lets all persist in a respectful tone as it will

  1. Be more likely to get an authoritative answer from the devs, since they arent being implicitly or explicitly berated.
  2. Continue to encourage developer interaction with the rest of the community, on various other topics that might be critical to other people.

---

As for the VBIEDs, one of the reasons I wouldn't include them is because certain countries might ban the sale of my game. I dont know if thats the case, but it shows there can be legitimate reasons, ones that aren't an issue for free-mods.

sorry man.. I answered too quick.. lol.. let you brow beat first.. i know i know..  Dev fail.. 

slithers back to cage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unfrail said:

As for the VBIEDs, one of the reasons I wouldn't include them is because certain countries might ban the sale of my game. I dont know if thats the case, but it shows there can be legitimate reasons, ones that aren't an issue for free-mods.

I can't find a single example of a Nation that bans video games featuring VBIEDs, while allowing conventional FPS games. The only example of a nation doing this, would be Germany, which also bans video games featuring violence in all forms. This is a case of self censorship and a major step down from this game's spiritual predecessor. If I had known this was the route to be taken with this game, I would have passed. In fact, I regret playing this game just long enough to be refused a refund by steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yukari_Akiyama said:

I can't find a single example of a Nation that bans video games featuring VBIEDs, while allowing conventional FPS games. The only example of a nation doing this, would be Germany, which also bans video games featuring violence in all forms. This is a case of self censorship and a major step down from this game's spiritual predecessor. If I had known this was the route to be taken with this game, I would have passed. In fact, I regret playing this game just long enough to be refused a refund by steam.

Maybe in the future you should stick to buying games that are complete if you throw your toys out of the cot every time a small feature that you don't want is not included in an early access game. Gary and whatnot were fun in PR, but certainly, CERTAINLY not a major feature when compared to all the other gameplay mechanics. And as mentioned before, there is the possibility of modding, so why so sad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am about to start handing out foil hats. 

Anyone want one? 

There is no conspiracy, no censorship, no destroying of legacies going on... but there is certainly a nice pile of misinformation. 

We discuss features a group.. sometimes with morale and personal feelings attached and we make group decisions on where we want to go with them. 

We have to be able to look at ourselves and say we made the right decisions to represent the mechanics of the game while representing just enough of "real war" to get the point across without glorifying those particular actions we as a group find morally offensive or not worthy of our time representing. 

Look.. i get it.. it could be a lot of fun. I loved PR. But we decided to draw some lines in the sand. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

Gary and whatnot were fun in PR, but certainly, CERTAINLY not a major feature when compared to all the other gameplay mechanics. And as mentioned before, there is the possibility of modding, so why so sad?

Because of the precedent set by what seems to be a self-censorship. For me it goes back to when the Insurgents where named rather than the Taliban (which we can all evidently see they are). And while yes, the naming convention had little gameplay value, at the same time I didn't feel there was any strong reason not to name them the Taliban as they are in PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, IrOnTaXi said:

Actually..  no..  as per usual you guys read largely what you want to read in these situations.

Now, when you replied with that I was one of the only people in the thread can you tell me what part of my posts was incorrect? I'm legitimately curious.

As a side note I'd like to tell you the militia in PR was one of my favourite factions to play as with their unique little mix of insurgent and last-gen technology. Nice to see a name to a large part of the faction design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShaunOfCathay said:

Because of the precedent set by what seems to be a self-censorship. For me it goes back to when the Insurgents where named rather than the Taliban (which we can all evidently see they are). And while yes, the naming convention had little gameplay value, at the same time I didn't feel there was any strong reason not to name them the Taliban as they are in PR.

That's easy.. we decided to make them generic early on so they can operate anywhere. 

any other questions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

Maybe in the future you should stick to buying games that are complete if you throw your toys out of the cot every time a small feature that you don't want is not included in an early access game. Gary and whatnot were fun in PR, but certainly, CERTAINLY not a major feature when compared to all the other gameplay mechanics. And as mentioned before, there is the possibility of modding, so why so sad?

You can immaturely strawman and imply I am upset this game does not have a full list of features in a alpha stage. However I already stated my grievance is the PC attempt a game featuring war with belligerents that often use such devices. It was pedantic as featuring a WW2 game in Europe without Nazis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cbf using actual qoutes but.. 

"As for the VBIEDs, one of the reasons I wouldn't include them is because certain countries might ban the sale of my game. I dont know if thats the case, but it shows there can be legitimate reasons, ones that aren't an issue for free-mods." 

i honestly don't see how it is any different from strapping explosives on a vehical which we have seen in BF since forever.. to actually having bomb cars.

but if thats what they have to do to get around such cases i'd be happy for it too happen.

would add an extra elemt of suspense not knowing what car is riddled with explosives :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IrOnTaXi said:

That's easy.. we decided to make them generic early on so they can operate anywhere. 

any other questions?

 

Will the Insurgents in Logar Valley look different than the ones in Fallujah? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yukari_Akiyama said:

You can immaturely strawman and imply I am upset this game does not have a full list of features in a alpha stage. However I already stated my grievance is the PC attempt a game featuring war with belligerents that often use such devices. It was pedantic as featuring a WW2 game in Europe without Nazis.

 

I agree. the early access excuse isnt ideal. 

You have every right to not agree. 

We also reserve every right to do the best job we can making the game in the image we decide on. 

Trying to encompass every persons ideas would just be suicidal. (Being PC or not is irrelevant in the vastness of 180k customers)

But that is also why I am here on the forums at 11pm almost every night while my baby and wife are sleeping. 

I do want to know what people are thinking and engage them so they understand what we are thinking and get a little less pissed off when they can view the whole context and not just the snapshot of their own wishes. (which i still read good or bad)

 

cheers!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IrOnTaXi said:

Actually..  no..  as per usual you guys read largely what you want to read in these situations. 

Here are the facts. 

Suicide bombers : We are generally completely against this and don't plan on ever seeing them. (99.99% no)

VBIEDs: Not in our immediate plans for our core game but I don't see why they aren't something that could show up in some form. (75% likely if squad does well and achieves it's core goals (and insurgents become a big part of core game in future)) (Caveat: I can already see the insurgents as the most underplayed faction but we aim to give them some teeth in the future. Just not Suicide bombers)

IEDs: Already on the way. 

 

That's the final word.. no more speculative threads. 

 

PS,  If you knew how much I love asymmetry you would have no doubts the insurgents will be a fun faction when we finally get around to maturing their mechanics. I designed the original PR militia faction

I can understand being against the idea of suicide bombers and VBIEDs, but that still doesn't make up for what quite a few people see as ZTrooper stepping into a nice, respectful thread, acting the way he did, and shutting it down when people met his negativity with questions. That being said, you also have to realize that, based on what ZTrooper said and the way he said it (claimed to be speaking for the entire group) it's not "what we want to read" it's that we were told that it's not happening as the entire dev team agreed that it was a feature that was unwanted. We didn't hear 75% because we were told 0%. 

Also, I love asymmetry quite a bit, but even if I had known beforehand how much you loved asymmetry that doesn't mean that we're going to see it. I don't doubt we will, but just saying "I love it so it'll happen" doesn't necessarily give me anything beyond hope. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while it's something I want to believe in it's not something that's reassuring. 

14 minutes ago, Psyrus said:

Maybe in the future you should stick to buying games that are complete if you throw your toys out of the cot every time a small feature that you don't want is not included in an early access game. Gary and whatnot were fun in PR, but certainly, CERTAINLY not a major feature when compared to all the other gameplay mechanics. And as mentioned before, there is the possibility of modding, so why so sad?

Pretty shitty and immature thing to say, quite honestly. Just because Yukari wasn't civil doesn't mean that you have to be uncivil back, and that's coming from someone who's notedly uncivil. He has every right to be upset about something, especially with the way that ZTrooper acted. On top of this, the game was advertised as a spiritual successor to PR, and when I think of PR's insurgent faction I think of the VBIEDs, so not seeing that definitely makes me upset. Also, modding isn't an excuse for the developers not doing something themselves, especially not when a game is in alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can honestly tell you that i wasnt aware of ztrooper's specific statement and while i support him 100% afaik VBIED have never been 100% wiped off the board they have just never been put in our active development plan for the next 16 months up to 1.0

if we get to the point where a lot of vehicles on a big map works well for our game mechanics i can see them as a natural choice to extend the asymmetry of an insurgent faction. We don't know how that is all going to pan out yet so they are currently not in the plan. 

They can't be considered in isolation as a feature. 

Ps. I have no problem with this discussion but you guys need to realize this issue is put to rest until our core objective are achieved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IrOnTaXi said:

(Being PC or not is irrelevant in the vastness of 180k customers)

As developers, how do you guys feel, knowing that from the only 25ish of you, you have roughly 150,000+People buying and playing your product? 

Which, if ive done the maths right, 150K x $40 = $6 Million? Even though this isn't how it necessarily works

b0b9806010fd140c24d81de87d4d92ca_origina

Edited by LMR Sahara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, IrOnTaXi said:

sorry man.. I answered too quick.. lol.. let you brow beat first.. i know i know..  Dev fail.. 

slithers back to cage

You're the man with the answers. I'll get back to my donuts and homework :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bigsmokeee said:

cbf using actual qoutes but.. 

"As for the VBIEDs, one of the reasons I wouldn't include them is because certain countries might ban the sale of my game. I dont know if thats the case, but it shows there can be legitimate reasons, ones that aren't an issue for free-mods." 

i honestly don't see how it is any different from strapping explosives on a vehical which we have seen in BF since forever.. to actually having bomb cars.

but if thats what they have to do to get around such cases i'd be happy for it too happen.


would add an extra elemt of suspense not knowing what car is riddled with explosives :D

  •  

i agree. hopefully the "ied guy" role can put his heavy (100+ mm arty shell) ied in the passenger seat of a vehicle and arm the ied and be able to detonate the ied while driving. it would be no different than a bomb car in PR, especially if it has the music lol

edit: would be cool to put up to like 3 art shells in a car or something, just keep resupplying from the ammo crate. tank killer!

Edited by gunbattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×