Jump to content
Chuc

Announcement: Alpha 9 Features & Changelog

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Call Me Ishmael said:

The majority of what I see is great, but I can't help but actually dislike the addition of new vehicles on the PACT side. While it's nice to see fire support vehicles, it sucks to see that the US is getting nothing more than the Stryker with a CROWS M2 when Russia is getting vehicles with autocannons. Sure, they're not as armored, but the US still has nothing more than the M72 LAW, which is highly ineffective at taking out even light skinned vehicles.

 

It would've been nice to see at least some way to counter these new auto-cannon vehicles, but to me it seems like they're going to dominate the battlefield until the US gets heavy anti-tank kits or a similar vehicle with an autocannon. 

 

I agree, especially on open maps. As a suggestion related to this, I think IFVs spawn timers should be doubled and tickets increased by %40-50. So, BTR to 20 minutes, MTLB to 16 minutes, ticket costs 50 and 35 respectively until more vehicles arrive.

Edited by bilsantu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't agree. All the new 30mm mounted BTR has over the standard one is better blast protection. I'm not completely sure what that means, but I imagine that it'll still take the same amount of 50cal bullets to take down, while maybe taking +1 rocket.
So it's not like the it'll be invulnerable. It'll just be easier to take it down with bullets, than explosives for the time being.
To be honest, the Stryker seems like a much more OP vehicle, but again, the autocannon is a natural counter to it. 
So to me, it just seems that OWI is trying to promote Vehicle-vs-Vehicle gameplay, where US-vs-RUS is concerned, by not adding HAT kits for those factions. Yet.

If I have this right, the only counter to Strykers will be the autocannon and lots of RPGs, whereas a counter to the 30mm BTR will be any high caliber gun. So that should be interesting.
Now Russia will be focusing on bringing down HMGs to keep the BTR alive, while US will need to make sure that there are no LATs where the Stryker is going and ofcourse that the autocannon isn't looking that way either.

A much more interesting topic, imo, how many of these top-tier vehicles are we going to see per map. One? Three? Only present every other map?

Share this post


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

 

Will armoured vehicles in the future require a crewman kit to operate and will we be able to solo them (switching between driver and gunner)?

Well i think that it is going to like it was in PR where the moment someone grabs the gunner sit there is a short delay before he can actually fire ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, L0cation said:

Well i think that it is going to like it was in PR where the moment someone grabs the gunner sit there is a short delay before he can actually fire ... 

 

Think and know are two different things.

 

On 3/4/2017 at 7:23 PM, SgtRoss said:

This is not and will not be PR. As much as PR players would love to see PR 2, the reality is Squad was always designed with the intent to make a PR-like game more accessible to a larger audience as a commercial product. Sorry, some of you will always be dissatisfied and we understand that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Major Trouble said:

 

Think and know are two different things.

 

 

Agree ... Just said what i personally think would be the solution to 1 man crewing a whole tank .... It could be something completely different but we still have to make sure that heavy vehicles would be as multi crew as possible in my opinion . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, L0cation said:

Agree ... Just said what i personally think would be the solution to 1 man crewing a whole tank .... It could be something completely different but we still have to make sure that heavy vehicles would be as multi crew as possible in my opinion . 

 

I see 1 man crewing of vehicles a fair bit these days. I don't see it as a bad thing if it's working for the team. It's seems policing of such things is being left to server admins & SL's for the time being. I guess OWI are trying to be as least restrictive as possible but still encourage teamplay (vehicle claims??) and see how things play out before making any forced changes that limit a more casual player base than that targeted by PR's approach to the genre. Good or bad we'll have to see how it goes. I don't believe anything is set in stone as the devs are trying to make their vision the best it can be and am sure they will adapt accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Major Trouble said:

 

I see 1 man crewing of vehicles a fair bit these days. I don't see it as a bad thing if it's working for the team. It's seems policing of such things is being left to server admins & SL's for the time being. I guess OWI are trying to be as least restrictive as possible but still encourage teamplay (vehicle claims??) and see how things play out before making any forced changes that limit a more casual player base than that targeted by PR's approach to the genre. Good or bad we'll have to see how it goes. I don't believe anything is set in stone as the devs are trying to make their vision the best it can be and am sure they will adapt accordingly.

 

I see single man crewing of vehicles as inherently negative for the game. It goes against teamplay which is the core of the game. Also, casual players aren't the ones who single crew vehicles, it's the regulars who are experienced enough with the systems to do so without getting frustrated.

 

I hope we see some penalty to single crewing when more powerful vehicles are added. Whether that be the PR screenlock system (which I think was a bit clunky) or something simple like the screen fading to black and playing the noises of you switching positions for a few seconds before you assume control the crew position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing i see about 1 man crew is that we will have the abillity to control more vehicles at one time and overall more infantry on the ground , but on the other hand there is nothing more fun than operating a tank with a full crew, in addition that will insure that lone wolfs will have a harder time which is a thing that is alwaya welcome .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wanna restrict vehicles being one-manned, you could open up slots in the vehicle serially. In the BTR, for example, you'd need someone in the driver slot before unlocking the gunner slot. Very much like how roles are being unlocked, currently. So, if there's nobody in slot 1, slot 2 remains locked and unusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lutz_Persn said:

If you wanna restrict vehicles being one-manned, you could open up slots in the vehicle serially. In the BTR, for example, you'd need someone in the driver slot before unlocking the gunner slot. Very much like how roles are being unlocked, currently. So, if there's nobody in slot 1, slot 2 remains locked and unusable.


That's a pretty good idea.
Or, to make it less restrictive, make the engine automatically turn off, if a person switches from driver to gunner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lutz_Persn said:

If you wanna restrict vehicles being one-manned, you could open up slots in the vehicle serially. In the BTR, for example, you'd need someone in the driver slot before unlocking the gunner slot. Very much like how roles are being unlocked, currently. So, if there's nobody in slot 1, slot 2 remains locked and unusable.

 

+1

Share this post


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

+1

 

 

-1   In some tactical cases having a gunner left in vehicle just for fire support, your suggestion would break this tactic. Therfore I do NOT agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Can a HAB be placed within the confines of an existing building or structure?

i also wanna know that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Can a HAB be placed within the confines of an existing building or structure?

I'd imagine not, except for buildings with enough room such as warehouses and maybe barns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Barbarossa said:

 

 

-1   In some tactical cases having a gunner left in vehicle just for fire support, your suggestion would break this tactic. Therfore I do NOT agree. 


No, not really. If there's already a gunner in place, he'll keep his slot until he himself leaves (or is releaved by SL). Which means that the driver can exit the vehicle while there's a gunner in place. If the driver were to die while outside the vehicle, then the gunner can hop into driver's slot - but he can't jump back in to the gunner slot.

If you want to make it more complex, you can surely make a function where the vehicle slots "recognizes" their respective occupants so that driver and gunner can exit vehicle simultaneously, but will be returned to their slots upon re-entering the vehicle.

Or, you could have vehicle crew roles which unlock these positions by default. Gunner can gun and driver drive; Gunner can drive but driver can't gun.

Certainly, these are not the only alternatives, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have answered the heavy asset crewman kit issue numerous times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SgtRoss said:

I have answered the heavy asset crewman kit issue numerous times.


And I'm not arguing for any of it to be implemented. Just pointing out various alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SgtRoss said:

I have answered the heavy asset crewman kit issue numerous times.

so what is the plan for vehicle crew then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2017 at 0:52 AM, bilsantu said:

 

I agree, especially on open maps. As a suggestion related to this, I think IFVs spawn timers should be doubled and tickets increased by %40-50. So, BTR to 20 minutes, MTLB to 16 minutes, ticket costs 50 and 35 respectively until more vehicles arrive.

 

I think that might be a bit too generous for both of those to be honest. 25 minutes for the BTR-82A and 20 for the MTLB would be much better until they get similar vehicles in for both sides, then it should drop down to the current rate. I've got no problem with vehicle warfare, but currently this update with tip the scales grossly in favor of the Russians to the point where I cannot possibly see it being fun to play against them on maps where vehicles are included. At the very least their spawn times need to border on unreasonable until HAT kits are released, which sucks as a developer because completed assets will not be in major use, but at the same time those assets have the potential to break the game entirely.

 

19 hours ago, Major Trouble said:

 

I see 1 man crewing of vehicles a fair bit these days. I don't see it as a bad thing if it's working for the team. It's seems policing of such things is being left to server admins & SL's for the time being. I guess OWI are trying to be as least restrictive as possible but still encourage teamplay (vehicle claims??) and see how things play out before making any forced changes that limit a more casual player base than that targeted by PR's approach to the genre. Good or bad we'll have to see how it goes. I don't believe anything is set in stone as the devs are trying to make their vision the best it can be and am sure they will adapt accordingly.

 

I honestly think that's an awful thing because, beyond being unrealistic in the sense that it would never happen, it's also unrealistic in that it would be incredibly inefficient. Try playing as a tanker in Red Orchestra 2 when you've got all your crew missing except for one and that's what it'd be like except a whole hell of a lot harder in a modern vehicle. 

 

Sure, this game isn't meant to be realistic, but it is meant to be a realistic portrayal of combat, and I think it's easy to say that a single man vehicle crew is not anywhere near the realm of that description at all. Players will always cheese the system when given the option to, so TWI should start doing the restricting now. I mean seriously, one only needs to look at ArmA to see that serious milsimmers are willing to cheat by using 3rd person mode to peak corners in a non-competitive, cooperative military simulator, let alone Squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Call Me Ishmael said:

I think that might be a bit too generous for both of those to be honest. 25 minutes for the BTR-82A and 20 for the MTLB would be much better until they get similar vehicles in for both sides, then it should drop down to the current rate. I've got no problem with vehicle warfare, but currently this update with tip the scales grossly in favor of the Russians to the point where I cannot possibly see it being fun to play against them on maps where vehicles are included. At the very least their spawn times need to border on unreasonable until HAT kits are released, which sucks as a developer because completed assets will not be in major use, but at the same time those assets have the potential to break the game entirely.

 

It's far too early to start discussing imbalance and ticket costs since we don't have the update yet.

 

I like to speculate as much as the next guy, but we've got to wait and play the update before discussing how much ticket costs and timers should be increased.

Share this post


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

 

It's far too early to start discussing imbalance and ticket costs since we don't have the update yet.

 

I like to speculate as much as the next guy, but we've got to wait and play the update before discussing how much ticket costs and timers should be increased.

 

No, it's not. Some of us here have thousands of hours of experience to anticipate some stuff. It's not a dramatic change to make it impossible to guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05.03.2017 at 10:45 AM, Peerun said:


I have to say, that looks like the most unreliable way of testing penetration. A tree? Honestly, trees have wildly varying density throughout the whole thing, wildly varying moisture also. I could be throwing dice and get more consistent results.

Frankly, yes, single random video is not a proof. But you must know, all military 5.45x39 rounds are AP, starting from the very early 7N6, up to the latest 7N24 with further increased penetration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD support anyone?

Can't play 25-30 fps on full player servers (Does not depend on video quality, same result on epic and low settings)

 

Spoiler

FX8320, 3.5GHz (stock)
MSI 970A-G46
16GB RAM Kingston HyperX Fury, DDR3-1866
MSI GeForce GTX 960 4Gb

 

Share this post


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

×