Jump to content
Friesen

Dear devs, the optics vs riflemen are seriously imbalanced

Recommended Posts

Dear devs, I joined the game today for few rounds after months of not playing to see if it has changed much. Impressed with many visual stuff, but played a few maps and on each one was won by the team having more optics than the other. When I wrote on the server everyone agreed with me. That I have absolutely no trouble dropping off guys one by one using my scoped rifle. Whereas riflemen are completely useless to even start firing at me.

So I have been complaining about this issue and I'd like to implore you to solve this boggling problem that is seriously affecting the gunplay in this game. As there is no chance to stand against any optic rifleman.

 

I still hope that the only reason you haven't upped the sway for all the weapons (because it is so ridiculously low even when the stamina is out) is because you haven't implemented the weapon-resting-over-objects feature yet. Where the sway would be at least 3x times higher than now especially when after running, and only resting weapons over objects such as wall you would have a minimal sway like you do have now (which is totally unrealistic while standing up).

 

And the suppression system. I implore you to take a look that a tiny jump of the sight for each bullet passing by is a stellar of a feature. It essentially affects the scoped riflemen the most. Because while your sceen is zoomed in, you're bound to have the jump higher than just looking down the iron sight. And this is where the gunplay wouldn't resort to this unrealistic run'n'gun using the optic rifle but only seeking carefully hidden positions and try to stay uncovered.

 

Obviously the zoomed in view outside the optic is also adding up to the whole overpowered-optics issue... Not as much as the lack of suppression effects for whizzing bullets but still I'd be happy with the way Post Scriptum:The Bloody Seventh has done just a blacked out view outside the optic as it is way more realistic than having a zoomed view outside it.

 

I hope making this post I'm not just wasting my time writing this. And that Squad eventually on the full release WILL have a proper balanced gunplay that is largely based on the suppression where it is ACTUALLY effective, and not optic riflemen completely picking everyone off one by one so easily that is now.

 

rqzW82h.jpg

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US forces will always have better weaponry than Insurgents, as they do in reality. Do Insurgent forces have the weaponry to go toe to toe in a 1-to-1 fire fight with the US? No. Do they have other options? Yes

 

I agree that, at the moment, the Insurgent forces are severely lacking on the new map, Kokan (which is the map your screenshot is from).

Sumari is a different story though. Played right (ambushes, sticking to the narrow streets and compounds) the insurgent forces are extremely competitive on the map. 

 

Kokan is a struggle due to the open environment of the map, especially the avenues of approach to objectives. Their best tactic is to rush centre cap with their whole force and dig in, out shoot the US forces in the compounds, 3 main routes into the town on Tempest locked down.

 

Yes Kokan is imbalanced.

Are factions imbalanced? I can see the arguments for both sides.

 

We must also remember that with more features, such as IED's, faction balance will not always be 1 for 1. As all factions will have different arsenal's to deploy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no please don't give me this kind of BS again with excuses and watering it down that everything is fine and Sumari is a whole different story. It is so ironic that the next map I played was Sumari and I made a screenshot of it (just in case) way before you posted your post.

 

It's not about a particular faction such as US. Russian team always wins over insurgent since they have 1 more optic per squad so It's not about a particular faction but about how even 1 optic more for the other team for each squad is already seriously imbalancing.

 

QYdxovk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One screenshot of a game isn't sufficient evidence to back your claim. Sumari does favour the insurgents weaponry, with weapons like the ppsh which dominate in CQB. 

 

Back to the point though, I already agreed that US forces have better equipment. And also that Kokan favours them. Kohat also favours US forces, especially if the opposing team tries to go toe-to-toe at long range. Just like Yeho V2 favours the Russians. There's no denying that

 

And you can call it BS all you want, but I am talking about what I know and what I've seen. Which is, factions deployed the right way in the right maps will usually have different results than the public trying to play the same way every time. 

Why post here if you aren't prepared for both sides of the story? Embrace the asymmetry, become the insurgent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In PR there was this thing that clans usually stacked on redfor side making blufor lose a lot so I think there will be more redfor wins IMO later. 


The game also sometimes introduces assymetric asset or map composition (in your case you are pointing out that you have no optics on a cqb map). Sometimes one team will get a mechanized section while the other team gets a cobra (Muttrah for example) or you just simply play insurgency.


Third point is that since there are not enough assets in the game yet we can not even talk about game balance. You are playing an alpha game ATM and it is a lot of fun. For me at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about being better equipped. It's the mechanic of the optic that compared to other titles is seriously too easy to aim. And the arguments that one screenshot isn't enough to prove. Oh yes once a while the insurgents will win with like 5 tickets difference. great. Most of the games are won by the team that has the surplus of optics in their team by at least 200 tickets every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I agree with your point (because at this point, an optic will out gun an iron sight past 100-200m hands down every time), it's valid, but it's premature. This point has been brought up numerous times (pick a high number, double it, and you might find the post count on this topic).

 

This 'game' has asymmetric warfare at it's core. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying "It's Alpha", or "there are more features coming that will balance the teams out", or something down those lines. But if someone is going to sit on a hill with iron sights and duke it out with someone else with an optic, they're either extremely confident in their skills or they're an idiot.

 

Many iterations of Squad have played and tweaked the game towards something that the devs are looking for (see Project Reality). So yes there will be teething problems (you think it was bad now, should have heard the crying when the US had 2 ACOG's and everyone else had none). Try to think of Squad like a game of Rock Paper Scissors, 1 class will outshine others in certain areas where it will get dominated in others. Furthermore, there is more to Squad than just shooting as well. So if you're having problems fighting against people with optics in an open area, draw them into a closed in environment to get the upper hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the devs are tracking Squad's stats through Google Analytics. I believe that, unless Militia and Insurgents have better shooters on their team than U.S or Rus, by default the U.S and Rus will always win. Maybe the Google Analytics reports show this, maybe not. But rest assured, any issues the game has will be addressed I'm sure.

 

Even if the devs won't or can't address it, the modders will. 

 

Regarding the sway, that actually benefits experienced shooters more than inexperienced shooters. Inexperienced shooters don't have the hand eye coordination to deal with the swaying sights, whereas experienced shooters do. I think the sway was implemented because some players can easily get a lot of kills. So far, I haven't seen a reduction in those number of kills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Odd_fella said:

I think the devs are tracking Squad's stats through Google Analytics. I believe that, unless Militia and Insurgents have better shooters on their team than U.S or Rus, by default the U.S and Rus will always win. Maybe the Google Analytics reports show this, maybe not. But rest assured, any issues the game has will be addressed I'm sure.

 

Even if the devs won't or can't address it, the modders will. 

 

Regarding the sway, that actually benefits experienced shooters more than inexperienced shooters. Inexperienced shooters don't have the hand eye coordination to deal with the swaying sights, whereas experienced shooters do. I think the sway was implemented because some players can easily get a lot of kills. So far, I haven't seen a reduction in those number of kills. 

 

 

As someone with a competitive back ground, I can confirm not seeing any reduction in my killing ability. I don't have google analytics, but I do track my games. your point about weapon sway is on point.

I have actually been scraping the community clan fight nights as well as my own performances. It isn't conclusive data by any means, but it is a common thing to see a skilled FPS player on an optic getting upwards of 30-40 kills with sub 10 deaths. With high repeat ability.

 

 

also how are they integrating analytics into squad? is it via server? client? Very interested. 

Edited by KCIV

Share this post


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

Where I agree with your point (because at this point, an optic will out gun an iron sight past 100-200m hands down every time), it's valid, but it's premature. This point has been brought up numerous times (pick a high number, double it, and you might find the post count on this topic).

 

This 'game' has asymmetric warfare at it's core. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying "It's Alpha", or "there are more features coming that will balance the teams out", or something down those lines. But if someone is going to sit on a hill with iron sights and duke it out with someone else with an optic, they're either extremely confident in their skills or they're an idiot.

 

Many iterations of Squad have played and tweaked the game towards something that the devs are looking for (see Project Reality). So yes there will be teething problems (you think it was bad now, should have heard the crying when the US had 2 ACOG's and everyone else had none). Try to think of Squad like a game of Rock Paper Scissors, 1 class will outshine others in certain areas where it will get dominated in others. Furthermore, there is more to Squad than just shooting as well. So if you're having problems fighting against people with optics in an open area, draw them into a closed in environment to get the upper hand.

This a hundred times, if you are outgunned you need to use defilade in the game to get around the enemy and hit them from the back, or draw them into you and send a flanking team to their back. The techies are always being used to go toe to toe when they should be doing hit and runs, and distract the enemy to certain places while you come up from behind.

 

US, RUSSIAN- can gun it out MILITIA, INS- Need more use of strategy and coordination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the new suppression system gets added all the imbalance we see now will be negated when u can suppress the absolute shit out of someone and out manoeuvre them. Until then we just have to deal with scopes as a big advantage to Russia/USA but it doesnt stop my fun....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An aim jump for scoped weapons when being suppressed would be amazing. Being suppressed could also drain your focus meter for example, causing you to take less accurate shots while under fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly they need to buff the movement speed of militia and ins by like 15% and then reduce the US/RUS movement speed by around 10%. Could be coupled with a slight buff to total stamina of INS/Mil. After all they aren't wearing the same equipment. 

This would impact the strength of the optic. Because right now the optic has the same maneuvering ability making its optic the primary decider. Change that, and suddenly the optic is what he is using to stay neutral.

Share this post


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

Frankly they need to buff the movement speed of militia and ins by like 15% and then reduce the US/RUS movement speed by around 10%. Could be coupled with a slight buff to total stamina of INS/Mil. After all they aren't wearing the same equipment. 

3

 

I can't wait for this to be implemented!

To OP, check this out: http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/99472719166387036/B6710F68DC49CCF075A668E8FAE267FF9B6E5618/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only it sound totally ridiculous to buff the movement speed for some factions, but it wouldn't even make a tiny of a difference in how optics aim and hit the targets. As it is so extremely easy and overpowering that any speed wouldn't make a difference at all and it'd be just totally pointless to do such a thing. If the INS/Mil have experienced players, then they may win the map. In the end if someone doesn't understand that the ultimate problem is not  the factions, but the optics itself, then even an insurgent soldier having an optic will have an unfair advantage over a US soldier that DOESN't use an optic. And showing an INS team holding 1 more flag than the US at the beginning of a round shows nothing. And again they can win if they have experienced players. That's not the point, the majority of time optics seriously causing imbalance in gunplay and this is why whoever has an optic easily scores off 20, 30 kills and hence seeing US/RUS team winning by over 200 tickets is such a common thing in this game. Your corroboration is so absolutely groundless of what are you trying to prove with that screenshot. That screenshot is crudely trying to show a US team briefly being held over Village when in the exactly the same game US by the end of the round push the INS as far back as Market. And easily won by 200 tickets. So what if INS wins once in a while with a lucky 10 tickets difference. You think just because they managed to win once by a luck and you've got a point? Nonsense, most of the time INS lose by a large margin.

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US is OP IRL, you'll see this represented in the game. 

However, Insurgents have faster vehicles, and additions like IED's and other advantages down the line...

Just wait it out. This isn't V1.0, this is A8.8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely prefer to play Russia vs US on Kokan in addition to the asymmetrical Insurgents vs US.

 

I prefer the symmetrical forces maps at this time because I do not believe the Insurgent faction design is asymmetrical enough to make them unique but still balanced on anything other than extremely tight maps. Insurgents on Kohat, for example, only lose if the US team is extremely incompetent.

 

For both the Insurgent and Milita factions I despise squad leading because neither SL role gets an optic option. In my view the SL not having an optic is a material disadvantage because the nature of this game is that folks follow the SL (or should be). When they can't use optics to reach further forward, the entire squad is incrementally disadvantaged. Not to mention that the "demanding" role of SL gets sub-standard equipment in comparison to other roles within the Squad.

 

Outside of the Squad Leader role, I don't mind the optics disadvantage. But I don't see other capabilities, yet, that make Insurgents balanced except for map design. The Militia faction needs some love as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the other responses were pretty reasonable and sensible. But when someone says to buff up the speed for the other faction, not only this leans towards the run'n'gun syndrome, something that Squad should never be part of, but is one of the most preposterous things I've heard in a while to do in an fps game other than crappy titles such as RO2 where they did all sorts of similar stuff and it didn't work out well. I just have to point out the discrepancy of it. If you really think that buffing up movement speed would improve any gunplay at all then see how that turned out in all the known fps titles that are arcade.

 

And I just can't see any other description fitting those that enjoy getting shot over and over by the optics any other than being masochistic or the opposite side of totally dominating by picking everyone off one by one which is just sadistic.

 

Therefore when joining the server and choosing the role, it's a bit like either you're in a mood of being sadistic or masochistic today, by either choosing the optic rifle or the iron sight which is just a cannon fodder because hands down the optics win any engagement over iron-sight even below 50m due to the absence even of a tiniest twitch to your sight when bullets passing by your head.

 

And again, it's not quite about a particular faction, anyone that is experienced and using the optic will probably tend to lead the team into a victory. If the INS had more optics than the US, they'd probably win more often. That is this crucial thing that must not be misunderstood, that in the end it's not about the factions per se. It's about the mechanics. All it needs is a tiny jump for each bullet passing and a much bigger sway. And from now on you'd see optic riflemen only shooting from well covered and hidden positions.

 

PS -> I'm looking over some beta footage of RS2 how allegedly is so great and everything. Before I even knew how TWI tends to wash down their fps with all kinds of arcadish style movement ever since RO2.

 

And I just really liked the comment on YT where a guy says and got 89 likes for it (therefore someome must agree with it):

" Every game that is in Beta everyone is like "it's just beta bruh, the game is going to be much better at release", and then the game releases and barely anything changes. "

 

Or someone else's comment -> " This game is really far more arcady than RO or original RS. I realize it is Beta but that means that at least the foundations will stay 100% the same, and the foundations are more like Insurgency than Red Orchestra. "

 

And hopefully this reaches to those who tend to say things like that not realising that before it's too late, we are worried that the game will remain in the same optic-dominated gameplay that is now, and we feel like if we don't do anything about it such as at least voicing our opinion, then it'll be never addressed.

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this could be very good for the game,

 

1. Balance the rounds to around an hour.

2. Force 2 rounds in a game, no team swapping between rounds.

3. Both player sets, play both sides.

4. Match ends with stats.

 

This is the only way to 'fairly' play asymmetrical factions.

Of course making that a thing is something entirely different and I have no idea if it's possible!

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

×