Jump to content
YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife

Classic AK-47 and Type 56.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, KTMR29 said:

 

When you serve in what's basically a great AK 50's/60's/70's bazaar of an army, you tend to notice things.

 

Also we love our AK's. Kallash Über Alles.

 

How many servicemen play this damn game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

Are you crazy man!? you can't come into this thread using sense and logic!

The small dev team has to drop everything they are doing (Intergrating 4.12, animations, player models, netmove coding, vehicle work, optimization, bug fixes, map work etc) right now and tart up some AK models. Plus get it all perfect in under a year so people can compare it to something that took 10 years to do.

 

 

Actually, they did 4 different rifles from the AK pattern with the long barrel. AMD/PM/AKM/74(N-M), then there's the 74U. Those cover about 85% of the rifles you'll ever see out there. So they did have time for some detail and I'm thankful for that. 

Share this post


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

 

How many servicemen play this damn game?

 

Me and many others I believe.

Share this post


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

 

How many servicemen play this damn game?

Not current. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

The original AK has still been decently prevalent in Africa and the Middle East, surprisingly. That being said, it's not prevalent enough to be worth adding to the game for no reason other than diversity. I will say that it would be cool to see one, but it's not something the devs should focus on. 

 

It's relict.It still appears,but probably like 1 AK of 10000 AKM-like weapons,maybe more.

Despite Type56 doesn't have muzzle brake,they created on AKM technilogy.

 

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife said:

 

How many servicemen play this damn game?

 

retired.

 

9 hours ago, Carlos said:

The small dev team has to drop everything they are doing (Intergrating 4.12, animations, player models, netmove coding, vehicle work, optimization, bug fixes, map work etc) right now and tart up some AK models. Plus get it all perfect in under a year so people can compare it to something that took 10 years to do.

 

I understood lack of resources,but it's all not about it.

PR tried to be authetic as maximum as possible as far as I know.Yes,they had some wrong details... but for mod it was acceptable.It also been created a lot of time ago,so some things was actual this time,but not now.

For stand-alone commertial game this isn't acceptable,if they wanna reach such status as PR did.

 

Just some examples:

M939 truck - cool for Cold War Addon,but goddamn,It's almost replaced by FMTVs.

Ural 375D - probably 98% of them are scrapped.Other 2% still working,just because this 98% share them it's details.The most common truck in Russian Army today is a KAMAZ 5350.Also,lots of URAL 4320 still in action.

MT-LB 6MB - PR had this,but only because they had MT-LB base,and didn't have BMPs1/2 at this time.MT-LB was created primary for Strela-10,not for 6MB.

KS-23 - a gun,which didn't used by any military branch in Russian Army.

 

As for me - it's just a waste of this small resources,what DEVs have.They create stuff,which not really needed.Just my opinion.

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small team is not an argument. There is no reason to remove KS-23, remake BTR or MT-LB, cause these models still are not implemented. What's the point to make hasty and incorrect models, if there are no core functions for them in game?

 

Advisors have nothing to do with all this stuff. Devs have the last word.

 

I like how devs and supporting part of community mixing authenticity and ruined gameplay, how they are turning Breacher kit into Shotgun kit, how they seek for references in the first line of google pictures, just because the people who can notice it is "irrelevant" part of community. Is there at least one aspect of this game, which is not ruined by lack of time, resources and money? Except for sounds and effects, looks like Bruno and Anders are the only guys who don't say "it's OK this way"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KTMR29 said:

 

 

Oi you got that thing badly mixed.

 

Last picture that's a stockless Type 56 (muzzle and gasport) and what looks like a FEG85

Second from last, it is a wooden mockup of a bulgarian rifle (waffle mag).

Third from last (Type56/AKM/PM63)

Fourth from last (AKM)

Second what looks as a stamped, Type 56-0 (buttstock comb, trunion lever).

And finally the first...not an "AK" but and East German repoduction (E-D selector markings and 2B/3A short triggerguard + sightblock).

 

There's no milled AK in your pictures.

 

Also there's no AK74M for Talibobs ingame.  Only 74.

 

2nd from last is actually a really weird wooden mockup rifle as it appears to have a lot of parts from an M70 but not all of them. There's most definitely a Type 56 in the background, though it's missing its bayonet. Also, the AK74 in game for the Taliban is the 74N.

 

10 hours ago, YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife said:

 

How the hell do you people know this stuff?

Edit: I thought the last one was a Type 56 because of the smooth muzzle but wasn't sure.

 

It's all the in the details.

 

9 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

Are you crazy man!? you can't come into this thread using sense and logic!

The small dev team has to drop everything they are doing (Intergrating 4.12, animations, player models, netmove coding, vehicle work, optimization, bug fixes, map work etc) right now and tart up some AK models. Plus get it all perfect in under a year so people can compare it to something that took 10 years to do.

 

Wow dude, that's like, a totally radical assumption you've got going on there. How could you possibly have guessed that everyone who wants the Type 56 wants them to stop progress on the animations update, vehicle update, models update, and so on and so forth just to add the Type 56? Since I want the Type 56, I clearly want the devs to stop literally everything else, right? Oh fuck off, dude. I want to see a weapon variant in game and have justified several times why it's different enough from the standard AKM to warrant a place in this game, but I don't care if it comes tomorrow on in two years so long as the devs promise to put it in the game. 

 

9 hours ago, Assifuah said:

 

Yup. Most people don't realise that Project Reality didn't start off as a full blown total conversion mod the same way Squad won't start off as a fully authentic game (and there's more important things than a few panels on an MTLB or BTR right now such as getting the actual functionality down).

 

If these people were really about giving feedback they would have posted it once and accepted it. Complaining and mentioning the same thing several times over and over again.. well, that's just them wanting something.

 

Not correct at all. I originally wanted to give feedback, but since I've been met with nothing but harsh words about how it's more work for nothing extra, I'm not going to drop the subject. The Type 56 is a damn worthwhile gun that deserves to be put in sooner or later, but I'm not going to accept "I'm too lazy to do another model and skin sometime between now and release" as an answer. Give me a reason to stop requesting it and I'll do just that. Rather than "I don't want to do it" or "it's too similar to other weapons" or "we don't have the resources" give me a proper reason why it shouldn't be in the game? I don't want to isn't a reason, it's not similar to other weapons, and the devs have shown time and time again that they're great at wasting resources (KS-23, M9A1, the SKS [[TOO SIMILAR ALERT]], AKS-74M which doesn't exist, etc.) so none of these are proper answers.

 

This one's for Z: Have a dialogue with us on the forums about it @Z-trooper rather than posting a few paragraphs ranting that nobody appreciates how hard you work and all that shit, maybe come for an actual chat with a few sentences per post. Guarantee you'll get a lot more done in the same amount of words with an open discussion than ranting and vaguely targeting certain community members. 

 

8 hours ago, YuriIsLoveYuriIsLife said:

 

How many servicemen play this damn game?

 

Spoiler: serving in the military is one of the most prevalent occupations in the world. It's not surprising that a lot of people have spent time holding a rifle in the name of their country; hell, many European countries still force you to do so. 

 

2 hours ago, samogon said:

 

It's relict.It still appears,but probably like 1 AK of 10000 AKM-like weapons,maybe more.

Despite Type56 doesn't have muzzle brake,they created on AKM technilogy.

 

 

It's definitely a relic, but I'd say it's more common than that. 

Edited by VarenykySupreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought MORE than enough reasons were stated. I just don't think it's the answers YOU want to hear. Really this discussion should've ended on the first page after Z's post... It more than explains the reasoning for not adding this weapon. If you want it so bad make it yourself and you can make a whole damn type 56 mod ffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IWI-GALIL5.56FA said:

I thought MORE than enough reasons were stated. I just don't think it's the answers YOU want to hear. Really this discussion should've ended on the first page after Z's post... It more than explains the reasoning for not adding this weapon. If you want it so bad make it yourself and you can make a whole damn type 56 mod ffs. 

 

Except the thing is his reasoning was that it's an identical looking (incorrect, and he even goes on to acknowledge this) and identical performing (incorrect, the Type 56 is less controllable due to having a higher ROF and no muzzle device of any kind, it also has a bayonet which he goes on to acknowledge the possibility of, which is a massive feature considering it's a far greater bayonet than the standard AKM bayonet). The "worse" sights (opinion, much?) could also change player-based performance and usage. I know I'd much rather have a sighted hood considering how tiny the AK's irons are in game.

 

His reasoning comes down to, as I said "I don't want to" overall. There's no reason it can't use the same receiver asset as the standard AKM, or a modified barrel asset, or a modified gasblock asset, or the AK74M's dust cover asset, and so on and so forth. The Type 56 isn't a wholly different weapon from all the other AKs in the game, it's just got a few unique visual aspects topped with very unique handling characteristics. The weapon is unique enough handling-wise to deserve a spot in the game, and then you pile on top of it the fact that he himself has stated that they're pushing for authenticity and Bob's your fucking uncle. The weapon is one of the most common AKM-style weapons in the Middle East, but we're not going to see it because other, rarer models were easier to make or were previously made? Or, better yet, making wholly new and shitty, more obscure weapons like the SKS?

 

I've got no problem being told no for decisions that make sense with reasoning that makes sense, but as far as I can tell the reasoning here is that it's too much work for an identical weapon, but assets are reusable here and the weapon is far from identical. It's a false premise. 

 

A mod? The thing here is I'm not a game dev who is specifically talking about the great lengths they plan on going to for authenticity, only to back out on the liberal usage of the catchphrase authenticity when it suits them. I don't get paid to create a model, but I can tell you that when I'm at my job I don't bitch and rant and rave when my boss or the workers I'm assigned to look after ask me to do things that aren't necessarily the smartest possible thing to do. I explain to them why another method would be better and if there's a clash in management style we talk it out rather than make passive aggressive comments about certain, nondescript members of the workforce that we don't like because they don't see eye to eye with us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

 

2nd from last is actually a really weird wooden mockup rifle as it appears to have a lot of parts from an M70 but not all of them. There's most definitely a Type 56 in the background, though it's missing its bayonet. Also, the AK74 in game for the Taliban is the 74N.

 

 

It's all the in the details.

 

 

Wow dude, that's like, a totally radical assumption you've got going on there. How could you possibly have guessed that everyone who wants the Type 56 wants them to stop progress on the animations update, vehicle update, models update, and so on and so forth just to add the Type 56? Since I want the Type 56, I clearly want the devs to stop literally everything else, right? Oh fuck off, dude. I want to see a weapon variant in game and have justified several times why it's different enough from the standard AKM to warrant a place in this game, but I don't care if it comes tomorrow on in two years so long as the devs promise to put it in the game. 

 

 

Not correct at all. I originally wanted to give feedback, but since I've been met with nothing but harsh words about how it's more work for nothing extra, I'm not going to drop the subject. The Type 56 is a damn worthwhile gun that deserves to be put in sooner or later, but I'm not going to accept "I'm too lazy to do another model and skin sometime between now and release" as an answer. Give me a reason to stop requesting it and I'll do just that. Rather than "I don't want to do it" or "it's too similar to other weapons" or "we don't have the resources" give me a proper reason why it shouldn't be in the game? I don't want to isn't a reason, it's not similar to other weapons, and the devs have shown time and time again that they're great at wasting resources (KS-23, M9A1, the SKS [[TOO SIMILAR ALERT]], AKS-74M which doesn't exist, etc.) so none of these are proper answers.

 

This one's for Z: Have a dialogue with us on the forums about it @Z-trooper rather than posting a few paragraphs ranting that nobody appreciates how hard you work and all that shit, maybe come for an actual chat with a few sentences per post. Guarantee you'll get a lot more done in the same amount of words with an open discussion than ranting and vaguely targeting certain community members. 

 

 

Spoiler: serving in the military is one of the most prevalent occupations in the world. It's not surprising that a lot of people have spent time holding a rifle in the name of their country; hell, many European countries still force you to do so. 

 

 

It's definitely a relic, but I'd say it's more common than that. 

 

 

It's not an M70 it's just the wood mockup that doesn't need fine details, look at zoomed image, it has an Al-tabuk (Iraqi licensed M70 rifle, you can see the DMR Al Tabuk behind) like receiver, but grip, handguard is all wrong and gas port is non-Zastava and comb is Soviet style. Which indeed makes it look like an Iraqi produced wooden mockup of their rifles (including the batches of Bulgarian Arsenal they smuggled in during embargo and afterwards). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the devs, it appears that they are looking to making fast models that are easier to implement so that they can get some stuff out of the way and start throwing in the more important core aspect of gameplay out before EA ends next year. So they make placeholders that feel in the gap.

 

For instance, we need a pistol for the Americans. So to get that out of the way they added the M9A1 even though that's for the USMC. Same for this and that.

 

It won't be true for everything else that could use a model fixing, but then again, Alpha is still Alpha. Art isn't as urgent to get right as it's mostly aesthetic, and can be replaced down the line if need be. For instance, you could rush an unrealistic pistol out to start on a GPMG out, then you'll have 2 important pieces of gear out and you can rework your pistol model when you've got the time. Or you could spend more time to make a realistic pistol and at the end of the day you only have 1 of the 2.

 

But it's just Alpha. Maybe down the line when Squad looks more like what it should be, shit will start to look more and more so in the art department. I mean, we bought this knowing stuff will change, so we may as well hope for change, no?

 

And regarding the Type 56, as I've said the other AKs were do-able cos they all share similar receivers, barrels, muzzles, stocks, handguards and dust covers and you could easily make another by switching one or 2 parts of one model to another. But with the AK-47 and co they look similar enough as moar old wooden kalashnikov rifelz, but they are still pretty fundamentally different. Heck even the sights between the AKM and AK-47 are different or so I'm told. It's not going to be as convenient to make it.

 

Just let it rest guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blackout330 said:

According to the devs, it appears that they are looking to making fast models that are easier to implement so that they can get some stuff out of the way and start throwing in the more important core aspect of gameplay out before EA ends next year. So they make placeholders that feel in the gap.

 

For instance, we need a pistol for the Americans. So to get that out of the way they added the M9A1 even though that's for the USMC. Same for this and that.

 

It won't be true for everything else that could use a model fixing, but then again, Alpha is still Alpha. Art isn't as urgent to get right as it's mostly aesthetic, and can be replaced down the line if need be. For instance, you could rush an unrealistic pistol out to start on a GPMG out, then you'll have 2 important pieces of gear out and you can rework your pistol model when you've got the time. Or you could spend more time to make a realistic pistol and at the end of the day you only have 1 of the 2.

 

But it's just Alpha. Maybe down the line when Squad looks more like what it should be, shit will start to look more and more so in the art department. I mean, we bought this knowing stuff will change, so we may as well hope for change, no?

 

And regarding the Type 56, as I've said the other AKs were do-able cos they all share similar receivers, barrels, muzzles, stocks, handguards and dust covers and you could easily make another by switching one or 2 parts of one model to another. But with the AK-47 and co they look similar enough as moar old wooden kalashnikov rifelz, but they are still pretty fundamentally different. Heck even the sights between the AKM and AK-47 are different or so I'm told. It's not going to be as convenient to make it.

 

Just let it rest guys.

 

They already have made more models than game actually needs at this moment: G3, PPSH, SKS, Rem870, TT-33, KS-23 etc.  What about vehicles? They got MT-LB about a year ago, and we won't see tracked vehicles until v9. Instead of improving model, they were making another vehicle assets, which are not required due to alpha state. They had the opportunity to get a BTR-80 model, but decide to keep their own, less detailed. It wasn't matter of time, cause they still has a lot of time untill APC mechanics will be implemented.

 

KS-23 was made in the name of balance, because devs want to balance guns, not breaching possibilities. There was the whole thread of different ways to balance realistic breaching mechanics, but it was ignored. Why? Because this game is okay for mainstream player. No reason to go further. And it is not the waste of time and resources. 5 minutes spended on message to military advisor, 10 minutes for military advisor to make a research if needed. Every update brings a thread or question from certain group of community. If community immediately notices incorrections and offers multiple ways to fix it, why devs can't?

 

The problem is that every recap, every update brings more and more little incorrections. How much of them will we have when game will be release? Will gameplay be flawless and revolutionary enough to make all these details unnecessary? I don't think so.

 

When devs talk about gameplay, they explain every decision. That's the reason why most of nitpickers don't complain about various mechanics. But when we ask about authenticity, devs answer nothing or "it doesn't matter". They never said these assets will be changed or improved. There is no "it would be right" in Squad development, there is only "it would be enough".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

Not correct at all. I originally wanted to give feedback, but since I've been met with nothing but harsh words about how it's more work for nothing extra, I'm not going to drop the subject. The Type 56 is a damn worthwhile gun that deserves to be put in sooner or later, but I'm not going to accept "I'm too lazy to do another model and skin sometime between now and release" as an answer. Give me a reason to stop requesting it and I'll do just that. Rather than "I don't want to do it" or "it's too similar to other weapons" or "we don't have the resources" give me a proper reason why it shouldn't be in the game? I don't want to isn't a reason, it's not similar to other weapons, and the devs have shown time and time again that they're great at wasting resources (KS-23, M9A1, the SKS [[TOO SIMILAR ALERT]], AKS-74M which doesn't exist, etc.) so none of these are proper answers.

 

This one's for Z: Have a dialogue with us on the forums about it @Z-trooper rather than posting a few paragraphs ranting that nobody appreciates how hard you work and all that shit, maybe come for an actual chat with a few sentences per post. Guarantee you'll get a lot more done in the same amount of words with an open discussion than ranting and vaguely targeting certain community members. 

 

I'm going to assume you know what goes into making a weapon, from start to finish, right? Stuff like high poly model, low poly, unwrapping, baking, texturing, animation set up (which in this case the weapon is already the same base as others so, easy there) and some other stuff. Now, to you that might seem like "oh but they already have the AK platform in, so it's gotta be easier than making full new weapons instead of adding a similar one or fixing the old one" but you have to think: Has ZTrooper / the art team got other stuff to worry about right now that's higher on the priority list? Remember, a lot of these guys are stretched across multiple disciplines. 

 

Yes, it could be a weeks or two worth of work to fix or implement new things at this time but since they're responsible for more than one job that means whatever they don't do as planned gets pushed back which.. for a small team like that, has a domino effect. Honestly, art is probably the only thing that doesn't get bogged down (as well as design prototyping). All you need is your brief and you can churn out assets - you can see this in practice via the way the vehicles are right now. The systems were completely re-done from the ground up.. but the art team could still keep up the production of other vehicle assets. However, there's only so far a programmer and designer can go with primitive shapes for prototyping and what not until they hit a wall and require the full art asset in order to polish and finalise implementation. And if they did fix it on the art side who is to say it's going to be put in-game straight away? That just means those minor (yes, because to the rest of the game that needs completing, those details are considered minor) would be higher on the priority list as anything else.

 

So, going by that... if they spend an X amount of time on fixing these inaccuracies or adding some more weapon variations that means they're not doing something else which could potentially slow down the whole process. Indie dev teams / small teams that have multi disciplined members rely on each other heavily. Larger teams with specialists or AAA teams.. they have full departments and people to fill in gaps if needed.

 

He / any developer working on any game doesn't have to flat out justify themselves to you. The decisions they make, especially the guys that are in Lead positions, can be as simple as "I / we don't want to". That's no different than a junior or new guy answering "well, it's just the way I've been told to work" or "it's not included in our current plans". It's just a matter of perception.

 

Great at wasting resources? I would suggest looking into the dates those assets were implemented or revealed to us - which probably doesn't even directly link to the time they were created. Some of these assets have also been in the pipeline for well over a month - take the PPSH for example. Oh, so they showed a textured BTR (that's also been in the works for a while) and a PPSH together in the same recap... that doesn't mean the PPSH was started after the initial BTR work in progress shots.

 

EDIT: Also, there's optimisation techniques involved in the art side too. Some of the AK's share the same texture sheet, that means if you want to add to it and have it share parts.. it's not as easy as just making a new weapon. I could blabber on for days about these things.

 

Check this out. This gameplay footage... look how different it is: movement speed, animations, weapon handling, environment, lighting.. just look and compare it to Squad now. THIS is the day and night difference we'll see again. So don't fret, you can look back on Alpha v6 in a year and be like "damn, that's not even the same game". And guess what, the player stuff is unchanged because the "game" itself is much more important.

 

 

Like, seriously. I have no idea what it's going to take besides people wanting to hear the words they want to hear. The guy said no. Will it be a no forever? That's probably not even in his power to consider at this stage.. there's plenty of other important stuff to work on. At least he said something. If you can't accept it, carry on repeating the same thing.. but that's one of the main reasons they probably spend more time on reddit than these forums. It's much harder to repeat yourself on reddit than it is in here. I know I don't want to see the same topics over and over again.. which have even been commented on by devs (another thing easy to see on reddit).

 

If you want something more relaxed and open though.. Discord servers is the place to be. People know not to repeat themselves in there and the devs openly chat with the community. If you already haven't, do check it out. You can get plenty more interaction there regarding any plans or why something isn't being done with the devs than on forums.

 

1 hour ago, ZiGreen said:

They already have made more models than game actually needs at this moment: G3, PPSH, SKS, Rem870, TT-33, KS-23 etc.  What about vehicles? They got MT-LB about a year ago, and we won't see tracked vehicles until v9. Instead of improving model, they were making another vehicle assets, which are not required due to alpha state. They had the opportunity to get a BTR-80 model, but decide to keep their own, less detailed. It wasn't matter of time, cause they still has a lot of time untill APC mechanics will be implemented.

 

KS-23 was made in the name of balance, because devs want to balance guns, not breaching possibilities. There was the whole thread of different ways to balance realistic breaching mechanics, but it was ignored. Why? Because this game is okay for mainstream player. No reason to go further. And it is not the waste of time and resources. 5 minutes spended on message to military advisor, 10 minutes for military advisor to make a research if needed. Every update brings a thread or question from certain group of community. If community immediately notices incorrections and offers multiple ways to fix it, why devs can't?

 

The problem is that every recap, every update brings more and more little incorrections. How much of them will we have when game will be release? Will gameplay be flawless and revolutionary enough to make all these details unnecessary? I don't think so.

 

When devs talk about gameplay, they explain every decision. That's the reason why most of nitpickers don't complain about various mechanics. But when we ask about authenticity, devs answer nothing or "it doesn't matter". They never said these assets will be changed or improved. There is no "it would be right" in Squad development, there is only "it would be enough".

 

Things in bold - my reply:

 

Quote

someone said that once you put out a title in Early Access you suddenly gain thousands of veteran game designers who know best for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Assifuah said:

Things in bold - my reply:

 

I just repeated devs statements.

 

1.  They already have made more models than game actually needs at this moment: G3, PPSH, SKS, Rem870, TT-33, KS-23 etс

 

What's wrong with it? Which of listed guns are necessary? Shotguns for unexisting breachers? G3 in addition to SVD? One more sidearm for game where sidearms are worthless? In the same time russian SVD still has wrong furniture.

 

2.  and we won't see tracked vehicles until v9

 

Watch stream with IronTaxi and Lito

 

3.  which are not required due to alpha state

 It wasn't matter of time, cause they still has a lot of time untill APC mechanics will be implemented

 

BTR for the game which has issues even with stationary HMGs?

 

4.  KS-23 was made in the name of balance, because devs want to balance guns, not breaching possibilities

 

Tell me another reason. Or just look for MotherDear posts.

 

5.  Because this game is okay for mainstream player. No reason to go further.

 

Z-Trooper posts.

 

6.  And it is not the waste of time and resources. 5 minutes spended on message to military advisor, 10 minutes for military advisor to make a research if needed. Every update brings a thread or question from certain group of community. If community immediately notices incorrections and offers multiple ways to fix it, why devs can't?

 

Sometimes devs prefer to make a quick search by they own. It is really easy to notice.

 

7.   There is no "it would be right" in Squad development, there is only "it would be enough"

 

Z-trooper posts again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ZiGreen said:

 

I just repeated devs statements.

 

1.  They already have made more models than game actually needs at this moment: G3, PPSH, SKS, Rem870, TT-33, KS-23 etс

 

What's wrong with it? Which of listed guns are necessary? Shotguns for unexisting breachers? G3 in addition to SVD? One more sidearm for game where sidearms are worthless? In the same time russian SVD still has wrong furniture.

 

2.  and we won't see tracked vehicles until v9

 

Watch stream with IronTaxi and Lito

 

3.  which are not required due to alpha state

 It wasn't matter of time, cause they still has a lot of time untill APC mechanics will be implemented

 

BTR for the game which has issues even with stationary HMGs?

 

4.  KS-23 was made in the name of balance, because devs want to balance guns, not breaching possibilities

 

Tell me another reason. Or just look for MotherDear posts.

 

5.  Because this game is okay for mainstream player. No reason to go further.

 

Z-Trooper posts.

 

6.  And it is not the waste of time and resources. 5 minutes spended on message to military advisor, 10 minutes for military advisor to make a research if needed. Every update brings a thread or question from certain group of community. If community immediately notices incorrections and offers multiple ways to fix it, why devs can't?

 

Sometimes devs prefer to make a quick search by they own. It is really easy to notice.

 

7.   There is no "it would be right" in Squad development, there is only "it would be enough"

 

Z-trooper posts again.

 

And yet you go on to say that each update brings inaccuracies when you've just repeated existing statements. I'm aware of them, I just don't see how you can repeat them and in turn talk about how you think the game won't be good enough and revolutionary enough to stand against them.

 

Gameplay > realism / authenticity. Gameplay > polish in development. Combat realism through teamwork and communication, not details on equipment.

Share this post


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

 

And yet you go on to say that each update brings inaccuracies when you've just repeated existing statements. I'm aware of them, I just don't see how you can repeat them and in turn talk about how you think the game won't be good enough and revolutionary enough to stand against them.

 

I am talking for myself, for me great visual fidelity and immersion could compensate other issues Squad may meet in future, like bad performance, bunch of bugs, unifinished mechanics, declined ideas etc. Nobody can be absolutely sure that Squad will be perfect in all aspects and it won't be, because they are small team with restricted amount of money. Even AAA titles suffer from these problems, why Squad will avoid it?

 

21 minutes ago, Assifuah said:

Gameplay > realism / authenticity. Gameplay > polish in development.

 

You know, gameplay in Squad beats realism and authenticity everywhere, even if there are no conflict between them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Assifuah said:

Gameplay > realism / authenticity. Gameplay > polish in development. Combat realism through teamwork and communication, not details on equipment.

 

You can't compare meters and liters.They stay parallel.Same with gameplay,realism and authencity.

Look at ArmA3.They create great military tactical shooter,but they're completely not authentic.

 

27 minutes ago, Assifuah said:

Combat realism through teamwork and communication

 

oh,you know how stupid it sounds?

 

In my military experience - once I was close to real combat.We(4 soldiers) hold angry croud(150-200,mostly Muslims),order was - shoot on sight,no one shall pass.

Trust me - I never felt something same,while play Squad.If game would be even inch closer to this - i'll should feel at least small part of this emotions.

Edited by samogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Assifuah said:

Combat realism through teamwork and communication, not details on equipment.

 

Every online FPS allows to play more effective through teamwork and communication. Squad just make it the only way to play. In other words, main feature of Squad is lack of other features, except for great voice communication.

Share this post


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

 

You can't compare meters and liters.They stay parallel.Same with gameplay,realism and authencity.

Look at ArmA3.They create great military tactical shooter,but they're completely not authentic.

 

 

oh,you know how stupid it sounds?

 

In my military experience - once I was close to real combat.We(4 soldiers) hold angry croud(150-200,mostly Muslims),order was - shoot on sight,no one shall pass.

Trust me - I never felt something same,while play Squad.

 

And yet people like you can't seem to take that very statement into account when asking for authentic equipment, as if it was the number one priority. You yourself have just proven my point that I've been making this whole time.

 

That's good for you mate, except no game is ever going to capture that. Your personal military experience is clearly hindering your ability to find enjoyment in a video game since it's "not accurate" enough for how you experienced it. There are people out there who have experienced actual combat and still manage to enjoy this game. So that whole argument is invalid.

 

It really is just the minority. The only reason I can see past all this is because I understand the process and expect other things to take priority. That and if I really want to see a weapon and developers don't make it, I can just make it myself. Do I view that as an excuse for them to not add things? No, I view it as an opportunity for the community to do it themselves.

 

Just now, ZiGreen said:

 

Every online FPS allows to play more effective through teamwork and communication. Squad just make it the only way to play. In other words, main feature of Squad is lack of other features, except for great voice communication.

 

 Is that yet another person talking about Squad as if it was a finished game? Hahahah oh dear, nah you guys have fun. :D

Share this post


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

 Is that yet another person talking about Squad as if it was a finished game? Hahahah oh dear, nah you guys have fun. :D

 

I was talking about "forcing" mechanics, which are used by devs really intensive. Anyway, I usually don't discuss much about gameplay, because I am not a game designer and game is too young to be heavily judged from this point of view. I am not posting requests for new assets due to the same reason. I leave feedback about implemented things and there never was an answer from devs like "this is alpha/temporary decision/ placeholder". Every answer shows that devs don't care about this kind of suggestions at all and they are absolutely OK with current things.

Share this post


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

That's good for you mate, except no game is ever going to capture that. Your personal military experience is clearly hindering your ability to find enjoyment in a video game since it's "not accurate" enough for how you experienced it. There are people out there who have experienced actual combat and still manage to enjoy this game. So that whole argument is invalid.

 

So... such people,who doesn't have such experiences call this game realistic.

Just like - I never drove a car,but I read tons of manuals,it should feels like that.

 

11 minutes ago, Assifuah said:

And yet people like you can't seem to take that very statement into account when asking for authentic equipment, as if it was the number one priority. You yourself have just proven my point that I've been making this whole time.

 

It's not priority,just it must be done right.Since first run - im instantly had a facepalm,when saw Baghira pistol as Russian SL sidearm.Even PR had Makarov.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, VarenykySupreme said:

I've got no problem being told no for decisions that make sense with reasoning that makes sense, but as far as I can tell the reasoning here is that it's too much work for an identical weapon, but assets are reusable here and the weapon is far from identical. It's a false premise. 

 

So the only difference is looks, less control, and a bayonet? Ya... like Z said, not worth their fucking time. Would rather be flying a chopper around or driving vehicles... not wasting time on non-game breaking shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ZiGreen said:

Small team is not an argument. There is no reason to remove KS-23, remake BTR or MT-LB, cause these models still are not implemented. What's the point to make hasty and incorrect models, if there are no core functions for them in game?

 

Advisors have nothing to do with all this stuff. Devs have the last word.

 

I like how devs and supporting part of community mixing authenticity and ruined gameplay, how they are turning Breacher kit into Shotgun kit, how they seek for references in the first line of google pictures, just because the people who can notice it is "irrelevant" part of community. Is there at least one aspect of this game, which is not ruined by lack of time, resources and money? Except for sounds and effects, looks like Bruno and Anders are the only guys who don't say "it's OK this way"?

 

I 100% agree that small team is not an argument. It's a defense, sure, but it's a poor one to a well-worded argument. Small team means you can't get things done fast, it doesn't mean you can't get things done though. "We're a small team building a game base on authenticity, so we can't add this single rifle to the game that is extremely common in the regions where this game is based and is authentic to real life". How does that sound as an argument? Pretty terrible, to me.

 

You hit the nail on the head with your third paragraph. Bruno and Anders are the only devs who I've seen snippets from and thought to myself "man, these guys really aren't happy until they get shit done right". With every update, they don't necessarily make everything work, but they take a step in the right direction, take criticism, and set out to make it better in the next update. Hell, I've even seen Bruno post a few times on the forums and every time he's courteous, which is a lot more than what can be said for some of the devs here. Don't ever accept mediocre as a long-term solution, which is what's being done right now.

 

9 hours ago, KTMR29 said:

 

 

It's not an M70 it's just the wood mockup that doesn't need fine details, look at zoomed image, it has an Al-tabuk (Iraqi licensed M70 rifle, you can see the DMR Al Tabuk behind) like receiver, but grip, handguard is all wrong and gas port is non-Zastava and comb is Soviet style. Which indeed makes it look like an Iraqi produced wooden mockup of their rifles (including the batches of Bulgarian Arsenal they smuggled in during embargo and afterwards). 

 

God damn dude, you're more AK autist than I am. I've got a lot to learn; all hail the Kalash King. 

 

9 hours ago, Blackout330 said:

According to the devs, it appears that they are looking to making fast models that are easier to implement so that they can get some stuff out of the way and start throwing in the more important core aspect of gameplay out before EA ends next year. So they make placeholders that feel in the gap.

 

For instance, we need a pistol for the Americans. So to get that out of the way they added the M9A1 even though that's for the USMC. Same for this and that.

 

It won't be true for everything else that could use a model fixing, but then again, Alpha is still Alpha. Art isn't as urgent to get right as it's mostly aesthetic, and can be replaced down the line if need be. For instance, you could rush an unrealistic pistol out to start on a GPMG out, then you'll have 2 important pieces of gear out and you can rework your pistol model when you've got the time. Or you could spend more time to make a realistic pistol and at the end of the day you only have 1 of the 2.

 

But it's just Alpha. Maybe down the line when Squad looks more like what it should be, shit will start to look more and more so in the art department. I mean, we bought this knowing stuff will change, so we may as well hope for change, no?

 

And regarding the Type 56, as I've said the other AKs were do-able cos they all share similar receivers, barrels, muzzles, stocks, handguards and dust covers and you could easily make another by switching one or 2 parts of one model to another. But with the AK-47 and co they look similar enough as moar old wooden kalashnikov rifelz, but they are still pretty fundamentally different. Heck even the sights between the AKM and AK-47 are different or so I'm told. It's not going to be as convenient to make it.

 

Just let it rest guys.

 

The problem is that fast models are a waste of resources, which is one of the dev's main "standing" points against adding more authentic weapons to the game. The M9A1 I understand because the Army was originally supposed to be the Marines, but the KS-23? The PPSh? The SKS? The G3? What are all these? The SKS isn't accurate, hell, they've been seen less in Ukraine than original milled AKs with slab side magazines. The PPSh? It's there, but is one picture from Fallujah and a few more random Army photos enough to add it to the game over something we know is there and see every day? The G3? Maybe in the upper Middle East where Turkey plays a role, but in most places they're non-existent. The KS-23? Been over it with Russian servicemen throwing their opinion in, and it sure as hell wasn't favorable and it's definitely not authentic.

 

An alpha is an alpha, but an alpha is not an excuse for poor craftsmanship and ignoring your own tenants. If you treat it that way, you end up with DayZ.

 

9 hours ago, ZiGreen said:

 

They already have made more models than game actually needs at this moment: G3, PPSH, SKS, Rem870, TT-33, KS-23 etc.  What about vehicles? They got MT-LB about a year ago, and we won't see tracked vehicles until v9. Instead of improving model, they were making another vehicle assets, which are not required due to alpha state. They had the opportunity to get a BTR-80 model, but decide to keep their own, less detailed. It wasn't matter of time, cause they still has a lot of time untill APC mechanics will be implemented.

 

KS-23 was made in the name of balance, because devs want to balance guns, not breaching possibilities. There was the whole thread of different ways to balance realistic breaching mechanics, but it was ignored. Why? Because this game is okay for mainstream player. No reason to go further. And it is not the waste of time and resources. 5 minutes spended on message to military advisor, 10 minutes for military advisor to make a research if needed. Every update brings a thread or question from certain group of community. If community immediately notices incorrections and offers multiple ways to fix it, why devs can't?

 

The problem is that every recap, every update brings more and more little incorrections. How much of them will we have when game will be release? Will gameplay be flawless and revolutionary enough to make all these details unnecessary? I don't think so.

 

When devs talk about gameplay, they explain every decision. That's the reason why most of nitpickers don't complain about various mechanics. But when we ask about authenticity, devs answer nothing or "it doesn't matter". They never said these assets will be changed or improved. There is no "it would be right" in Squad development, there is only "it would be enough".

 

Once again from my supposed-self, you hit the nail on the head. Every change to gameplay is met with an answer, but content is met with negativity, a chip on the shoulder, and a rant about how we complain too much and the game isn't meant to be what we said it was. Little problems add up, and right now with the attitude I've seen here it seems they're going to be stacked high at the end of development because "it's not that big of a problem". To me, as someone who spent money on this product, it sure as hell is. 

 

8 hours ago, Assifuah said:

 

I'm going to assume you know what goes into making a weapon, from start to finish, right? Stuff like high poly model, low poly, unwrapping, baking, texturing, animation set up (which in this case the weapon is already the same base as others so, easy there) and some other stuff. Now, to you that might seem like "oh but they already have the AK platform in, so it's gotta be easier than making full new weapons instead of adding a similar one or fixing the old one" but you have to think: Has ZTrooper / the art team got other stuff to worry about right now that's higher on the priority list? Remember, a lot of these guys are stretched across multiple disciplines. 

 

Yes, it could be a weeks or two worth of work to fix or implement new things at this time but since they're responsible for more than one job that means whatever they don't do as planned gets pushed back which.. for a small team like that, has a domino effect. Honestly, art is probably the only thing that doesn't get bogged down (as well as design prototyping). All you need is your brief and you can churn out assets - you can see this in practice via the way the vehicles are right now. The systems were completely re-done from the ground up.. but the art team could still keep up the production of other vehicle assets. However, there's only so far a programmer and designer can go with primitive shapes for prototyping and what not until they hit a wall and require the full art asset in order to polish and finalise implementation. And if they did fix it on the art side who is to say it's going to be put in-game straight away? That just means those minor (yes, because to the rest of the game that needs completing, those details are considered minor) would be higher on the priority list as anything else.

 

So, going by that... if they spend an X amount of time on fixing these inaccuracies or adding some more weapon variations that means they're not doing something else which could potentially slow down the whole process. Indie dev teams / small teams that have multi disciplined members rely on each other heavily. Larger teams with specialists or AAA teams.. they have full departments and people to fill in gaps if needed.

 

He / any developer working on any game doesn't have to flat out justify themselves to you. The decisions they make, especially the guys that are in Lead positions, can be as simple as "I / we don't want to". That's no different than a junior or new guy answering "well, it's just the way I've been told to work" or "it's not included in our current plans". It's just a matter of perception.

 

Great at wasting resources? I would suggest looking into the dates those assets were implemented or revealed to us - which probably doesn't even directly link to the time they were created. Some of these assets have also been in the pipeline for well over a month - take the PPSH for example. Oh, so they showed a textured BTR (that's also been in the works for a while) and a PPSH together in the same recap... that doesn't mean the PPSH was started after the initial BTR work in progress shots.

 

EDIT: Also, there's optimisation techniques involved in the art side too. Some of the AK's share the same texture sheet, that means if you want to add to it and have it share parts.. it's not as easy as just making a new weapon. I could blabber on for days about these things.

 

Check this out. This gameplay footage... look how different it is: movement speed, animations, weapon handling, environment, lighting.. just look and compare it to Squad now. THIS is the day and night difference we'll see again. So don't fret, you can look back on Alpha v6 in a year and be like "damn, that's not even the same game". And guess what, the player stuff is unchanged because the "game" itself is much more important.

 

 

Like, seriously. I have no idea what it's going to take besides people wanting to hear the words they want to hear. The guy said no. Will it be a no forever? That's probably not even in his power to consider at this stage.. there's plenty of other important stuff to work on. At least he said something. If you can't accept it, carry on repeating the same thing.. but that's one of the main reasons they probably spend more time on reddit than these forums. It's much harder to repeat yourself on reddit than it is in here. I know I don't want to see the same topics over and over again.. which have even been commented on by devs (another thing easy to see on reddit).

 

If you want something more relaxed and open though.. Discord servers is the place to be. People know not to repeat themselves in there and the devs openly chat with the community. If you already haven't, do check it out. You can get plenty more interaction there regarding any plans or why something isn't being done with the devs than on forums.

 

Once again, nobody is asking for them to prioritize the Type 56 or fixing errors; we just want to know that they'll be fixed and/or that the rifle will be added because they're authentic, as the devs have said they want this game to be in this very thread. I'm fine seeing things fixed any time between now and the finishing of the game, but the thing is that we're not getting that guarantee, we're just being told that minor issues are minor and we should stop complaining because God forbid we find anything wrong with the perfect models we've been provided. I complain about this shit because it's constant that the answer is "yeah we'll fix it eventually and realize it's a problem" but is instead "no it's not a problem worth fixing". Is that not worth griping over? I've seen how games are made internally and it's not easy in the least, but that's not an excuse to drop your own tenant of authenticity. 

 

You're right, they don't have to justify their decisions at all, but at the same time I don't have to (and won't) recommend this game to the community of 1400 people that I run. I'm not going to endorse a product in front of people that I know and respect if the devs won't give me the time of day when it comes to their decisions. I'm not going to willingly bring people into a game when the devs can't even put up a reason besides "I don't want to". That's a lazy excuse, and it forebodes poorly for the project and even worse for the dev team as people overall. 

 

You do realize they were offered an ridiculously high quality BTR-80, right? Like, one completely finished and looking a shitload better than the one we've seen, right? Hell, Z-Trooper even messaged the guy about it, and then he just stopped replying to the creator of the content (this was all free, by the way). He never gave him a reason, but then went on to create a BTR-80 model of his own; is that not a waste of resources? The PPSh, regardless of when it was revealed, is a waste of resources compared to other weapons that they could've been working on. 

 

I understand how the game used to look and what it looks like now, but that doesn't guarantee fixes that the lead art designer himself is denying. It doesn't matter if it's a temporary no or not because the way he's stating it makes it seem like a permanent no, so I'm going to respond with permanent disappointment and disdain. if it's temporary, he should use his words to clarify it; God knows the rant went on long enough to do so. 

 

Once again, Reddit is a hugbox which is why they spend time there. They've stated that the reason why they spend time there is that it's a less negative environment (because fuck feedback, yo, especially in Alpha). Negativity is drowned out, which is why it's a poor forum and a poor place for anything other than dev dick sucking, and that isn't unique to Squad. 

 

7 hours ago, Assifuah said:

 

And yet you go on to say that each update brings inaccuracies when you've just repeated existing statements. I'm aware of them, I just don't see how you can repeat them and in turn talk about how you think the game won't be good enough and revolutionary enough to stand against them.

 

Gameplay > realism / authenticity. Gameplay > polish in development. Combat realism through teamwork and communication, not details on equipment.

 

Authenticity and realism are not one thing, which is why he's said the game is meant to be authentic and not realistic. Authenticity in this game pertains to better gameplay and more content and enhanced realism, so this situation is more Laziness > gameplay, realism, and authenticity. 

 

1 minute ago, IWI-GALIL5.56FA said:

 

So the only difference is looks, less control, and a bayonet? Ya... like Z said, not worth their fucking time. Would rather be flying a chopper around or driving vehicles... 

 

Wow, you've used simple wording to describe the difference between the M4 and the AK74 right now as well! Hell, the M4 doesn't even have a bayonet, so really the M4 should be removed from the game because it's a waste of resources, right? Once again, fuck off with your piss poor reduction. Nobody is saying it needs to be added right now. It's a weapon that behaves totally differently from all other AK variants and is more than worthy of being in the game for authenticity and gameplay's sake. I'd rather have vehicles first, but that doesn't mean that I don't want the Type 56 anymore. This isn't pick and choose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, VarenykySupreme said:

Once again, nobody is asking for them to prioritize the Type 56 or fixing errors; we just want to know that they'll be fixed and/or that the rifle will be added because they're authentic, as the devs have said they want this game to be in this very thread. I'm fine seeing things fixed any time between now and the finishing of the game, but the thing is that we're not getting that guarantee, we're just being told that minor issues are minor and we should stop complaining because God forbid we find anything wrong with the perfect models we've been provided. I complain about this shit because it's constant that the answer is "yeah we'll fix it eventually and realize it's a problem" but is instead "no it's not a problem worth fixing". Is that not worth griping over? I've seen how games are made internally and it's not easy in the least, but that's not an excuse to drop your own tenant of authenticity. 

 

You're right, they don't have to justify their decisions at all, but at the same time I don't have to (and won't) recommend this game to the community of 1400 people that I run. I'm not going to endorse a product in front of people that I know and respect if the devs won't give me the time of day when it comes to their decisions. I'm not going to willingly bring people into a game when the devs can't even put up a reason besides "I don't want to". That's a lazy excuse, and it forebodes poorly for the project and even worse for the dev team as people overall. 

 

You do realize they were offered an ridiculously high quality BTR-80, right? Like, one completely finished and looking a shitload better than the one we've seen, right? Hell, Z-Trooper even messaged the guy about it, and then he just stopped replying to the creator of the content (this was all free, by the way). He never gave him a reason, but then went on to create a BTR-80 model of his own; is that not a waste of resources? The PPSh, regardless of when it was revealed, is a waste of resources compared to other weapons that they could've been working on. 

 

I understand how the game used to look and what it looks like now, but that doesn't guarantee fixes that the lead art designer himself is denying. It doesn't matter if it's a temporary no or not because the way he's stating it makes it seem like a permanent no, so I'm going to respond with permanent disappointment and disdain. if it's temporary, he should use his words to clarify it; God knows the rant went on long enough to do so. 

 

Once again, Reddit is a hugbox which is why they spend time there. They've stated that the reason why they spend time there is that it's a less negative environment (because fuck feedback, yo, especially in Alpha). Negativity is drowned out, which is why it's a poor forum and a poor place for anything other than dev dick sucking, and that isn't unique to Squad. 

 

 

Authenticity and realism are not one thing, which is why he's said the game is meant to be authentic and not realistic. Authenticity in this game pertains to better gameplay and more content and enhanced realism, so this situation is more Laziness > gameplay, realism, and authenticity. 

 

I'm well aware authenticity not being the same as realism... I've been stating this in these forums since I signed up! Hence the /////////////.

 

How can he even give you that answer though? Don't you see the fact that the whole team has other things prioritised? If they're running anything similar to SCRUM / agile development then it's quite obvious that nothing else exists other than the current tasks which means, even if they wanted to, they're not at that bridge to cross and answer these questions.

 

Who said the models are perfect? They're great, but they're not perfect. In fact, we constantly discuss and comment on the art related side of development within Discord. Nothing is perfect. You can also go have a look at Escape From Tarkov - their art (weapons / vehicles / interiors) is fucking amazing but it's easy to spot mistakes and errors. To you that might seem trivial because you probably won't notice it - to someone who spends their time making game art... big deal. Sure, it's worth griping over but it definitely isn't worth throwing shade and bringing exterior claims such as not recommending the game to 1,400 people. That's a statement you make as a power play to try and intimidate the thought process.

 

I realise, and I saw the BTR-80. However, that's not how it goes in game development. There's plenty of guys in this community itself that could throw stellar AAA quality content at the devs for free but it just doesn't work like that. That would go into the outsourcing sector, plus I'm pretty sure the BTR-80 was just the high poly mesh. AT THE TIME, that could have been irrelevant. So you're saying the PPSh (a weapon) is a waste of resources and less important than other weapons they could've been working on? I think that's a matter of personal opinion right there, so I can't really dive into that one.

 

You're right, it doesn't guarantee fixes. It's no different from people asking for snipers though. That request is still as legitimate as the request for fully authentic assets.... yet we look down on those people who constantly request them? Even if the answer is a hard and cold no or "not planning on it". Oh yeah for sure, this thread is long overdue a proper burial. :P

 

I'm not a fan of reddit, that's for sure... but it's not about fucking (verb) feedback. It's about going to a place that sparks creative discussion and conversations than can lead to actual productive outcomes and ideas. What exactly is most of this thread doing? (OP is fine, I really see no problem it's just a suggestion but the stances others have taken.. I'm not so fine with that). This thread is negative purely because of the fact it hasn't generated anything productive, positive or idea based. No developer, especially during their development cycle, wants to see this.

 

I still don't view it as laziness though. It's not as if they don't have anything else to do. If that was the fact, yeah it's open season on the devs because they ain't doing shit... but they're working on things. I see your point, this could all have been avoided if you heard something like "No, not now we'll do it later" instead of "No" but really now... like I said, no different from people asking for snipers or 2 man recon squads and some of those threads have definitely received just "no" from devs yet there's no issues there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×