Jump to content
Robin Sage

Will v10 ruin Squad?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Think about this for a second though. So currently all [BRC] (Bob's Rushing Clan) has to worry about is getting rushed themselves. There is no downside other than that.

 

With that worry gone in v10 a single player in [BRC] can pick up the backcaps while the bulk of the team still rushes the central flag. Except now [BRC] changes their clan name to [BBC] (Bob's Backrage Clan) and also has squads pa-trolling in an arc around the enemy main raping logistics.

 

So now the purists will cry foul of this new meta... Be careful what you wish for is how this is going to go down...

 

 

 

Because the advantage is now slightly with the defenders in that the rushers have to eliminate whoever is backcapping on the enemy team instead of overwhelming them with numbers, I think a lot of teams like BRC will grow complacent and only send a single noob rifleman to backcap providing an opportunity to those who are bold enough to try to rush. It's risky enough that you wouldn't try it every time, but you might have a small mobile squad that gives it a shot since you're almost guaranteed to not have a full squad sitting on the cap defending like you might now. The meta will change and hopefully be more varied, but rushing can still win a match. 

 

Bring on the AT squads roaming around main..... 

 

 

Share this post


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

go to squad ops for milsim, or arma. Don't enforce your solid copies on people. 

Go to CS:GO for competitive play. Don't enforce your ggez rekt low for pro on people. ;)

 

Facetiousness aside, he didn't say "milsim", just "more realism", of which there are varying degrees. Surely you must have some appreciation of the game aiming for at least some realism/authenticity... otherwise why would you play it? If you are purely after a competitive, skill based FPS, surely there's much better options on the market that cater to this...so why choose a game which is obviously catering to a more realistic style if you think that threatens competitiveness?  That's a genuine question btw, I'm not spoiling for a fight...I just find it surprising that this game would appeal to the hardcore competitve gaming community.

 

The game seems to me to be one of the most authentic tactical shooters on the market, with more emphasis on creating a realistic feeling battlefield than most (proper milsims aside), which is its strength. So I find it odd that you are so against them refining that aspect.

Edited by DaiaBu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in the minds of most people that this game would appeal to, I'd wager. I don't think it's sacrificing gameplay,  just your ability to dominate so easily. If rushing is considered such a skilled tactic that is the preserve if elite competitive players, surely such players would easily be able to adapt to the changes and develop new tactics? As I said earlier, this game has a huge depth, the gameplay isn't solely defined by the rush meta, so changing it won't cause a catastrophe. 

Share this post


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

I'm against sacrificing gameplay for realism or creating another project reality. 

This game, is actually being marketed as a spiritual successor to PR, so I don't know what the problem is. It has never hid that, just because you saw a kickstarter with pictures of guns, then backed it before reading the first few paragraphs of the page, doesn't mean the devs now have to cater to you.

From the beginning, they have advertised a realistic, tactical military shooter.  I don't see why because of placeholder systems from early versions, the game needs to keep the systems,  just because it's a player made meta for the current version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Cypress said:

This game, is actually being marketed as a spiritual successor to PR, so I don't know what the problem is. It has never hid that, just because you saw a kickstarter with pictures of guns, then backed it before reading the first few paragraphs of the page, doesn't mean the devs now have to cater to you.

From the beginning, they have advertised a realistic, tactical military shooter.  I don't see why because of placeholder systems from early versions, the game needs to keep the systems,  just because it's a player made meta for the current version.

ahahaha nop, in the kickstarter, and even after on steam (at the beginning) it was said, mex between arma and battlefield, mix between arcade and simulation, not utlra harcore milsim game, even arma will become more accessible if it continues.
The problem is the balance between fun and army masturbation stuff

 

Share this post


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

Fair enough, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in the minds of most people that this game would appeal to, I'd wager. I don't think it's sacrificing gameplay,  just your ability to dominate so easily. If rushing is considered such a skilled tactic that is the preserve if elite competitive players, surely such players would easily be able to adapt to the changes and develop new tactics? As I said earlier, this game has a huge depth, the gameplay isn't solely defined by the rush meta, so changing it won't cause a catastrophe. 

true "elite competitive players" will adapt, and after  people are going to cry again , omg 35 kill, why they destroys all the vehicles, why we all died on the flag in 30 seconds ... and suddenly the dev will add even more artifice for the casu to be balanced with a try harder 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, padock said:

ahahaha nop, in the kickstarter, and even after on steam (at the beginning) it was said, mex between arma and battlefield, mix between arcade and simulation, not utlra harcore milsim game, even arma will become more accessible if it continues.
The problem is the balance between fun and army masturbation stuff

 

Quote

Officially, we have no formal connection. Generally speaking though, nearly all of our developers are retired members of the core Project Reality: BF2 development team, and we are seeking to make Squad the spiritual successor to PR in everything but name.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, padock said:

ahahaha nop, in the kickstarter, and even after on steam (at the beginning) it was said, mex between arma and battlefield, mix between arcade and simulation, not utlra harcore milsim game, even arma will become more accessible if it continues.
The problem is the balance between fun and army masturbation stuff

 

From Squad's Kickstarter page, listed under "Our Origins and Goals":

Quote

Squad was originally envisioned as a way to carry on the legacy of the popular “Project Reality” mod for battlefield 2. Founded by Will “Merlin” Stahl in early 2014, the project has grown to approx 22 developers the vast majority of who have contributed to the original MOD at some point in its long life.

Our goal for Squad is to take 10 years worth of experience, testing and research with the original Project Reality formula and apply it to a modern stand-alone engine. We want nothing less than to reclaim the genre of tactical shooters for the creators, modders and players who have waited a generation to get back to intelligent, satisfying gameplay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XB0CT said:

?

" at the beginning" , for steam I'm sure :) but maybe not on kickstarter .

and apparently many people have a problem with the competition on this games but hey? it was sold as a competitive game "SUPPORT FOR TEAM TOURNAMENTS AND LADDERS." Both large scale 50v50 matches for public and clan ladders, and 5v5 and 8v8 specifically designed smaller maps, allowing tournaments that can take full advantage of the Unreal Engine 4 framework, animations, weapons and ballistics systems to challenge the competitive standard FPS for the last several years. "

my point its just let's be a little more tolerant for everyone !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway just add this like a game mod , insurgency , invasion , aas "normal" , aas" no rush" , and erveryone is happy ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 8:39 PM, Robin Sage said:

...


The rush meta isn't suddenly void for competitive matches. It's simply nerfed to the point where it's unlikely to happen in pub play.
All you have to do is to clear the flag and you're set. I don't think this is something that's impossible in a competetive setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoying the shift... This one line from KS is so refreshing: "...get back to intelligent, satisfying gameplay."

Share this post


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

All these buzz words...

This has nothing to do with the discussion/argument at hand. we know why we like Squad, it's just some of us like and dislike different things. Either way, I'm happy with the direction squad is going, and I agree with the direction the devs are taking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am pumped about changing the rush meta if for no other reason than that I was getting tired of only playing on such small portions of several maps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cypress said:

This has nothing to do with the discussion/argument at hand.

My point is valid and has everything to do with discussion. There are always constantly several factions here debating that Squad should be this sub-genre or that sub-genre and I think everyone should consider themselves lucky that there's actually a totally unique game to play that's not mainstream normy garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

My point is valid and has everything to do with discussion. There are always constantly several factions here debating that Squad should be this sub-genre or that sub-genre and I think everyone should consider themselves lucky that there's actually a totally unique game to play that's not mainstream normy garbage.

Indeed, but I still can't see something that is a logic bug in the game mechanic is considered as a state of the art strategy. In the bad old days such were called as a glitch and were severely grieved over, especially in competitive circles. 9_9

Edited by WARti0k0ne -BG-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, WARti0k0ne -BG- said:

Indeed, but I still can't see something that is a logic bug in the game mechanic is considered as a state of the art strategy. In the bad old days such were called as a glitch and were severely grieved over, especially in competitive circles. 9_9

My personal perception was the rush to the enemies first cap was always a gamble and not a glitch. Who's to say your opponent wouldn't approach the flags in a linear fashion with their full force or at least a good portion and completly wipe you out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

My personal perception was the rush to the enemies first cap was always a gamble and not a glitch. Who's to say your opponent wouldn't approach the flags in a linear fashion with their full force or at least a good portion and completly wipe you out?

And many agree with you. Even my preferred flag capture mechanic with the zones we have is for neither side to cap while ANY amount of the OPFOR exists in the same zone. That's even more hardcore than what it currently is but at least it makes sense and is relatively simple, especially compared to what we have now.

 

The problem with these hardcore systems is that you need a damn near perfect Squad team to counter and exploit them. Which is why the competitive side has evolved the way it has with their specific tactics. But to expect that same cooperation in a pug match at the moment is folly. True, the change to round start will help teams organize. But giving defenders the initiative over flags the enemy can't cap is only a good thing for the VAST majority of Squad players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XB0CT said:

?

 

3 hours ago, Silly_Savage said:

From Squad's Kickstarter page, listed under "Our Origins and Goals":

 

 

3 hours ago, Cypress said:

This game, is actually being marketed as a spiritual successor to PR, so I don't know what the problem is. It has never hid that, just because you saw a kickstarter with pictures of guns, then backed it before reading the first few paragraphs of the page, doesn't mean the devs now have to cater to you.

From the beginning, they have advertised a realistic, tactical military shooter.  I don't see why because of placeholder systems from early versions, the game needs to keep the systems,  just because it's a player made meta for the current version.

I guess we forgot about this huh?

Edited by Robin Sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XB0CT said:

you can interpret that in so many ways lmao. just stop, go play an esports focused game because all you're focused on is competition. 

no? You can interpret it like it was, clearly he said that Squad ISNT PR and thankfully so. So stop trying to base your whole argument on "PR this" "PR that". Go play PR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Robin Sage said:

no? You can interpret it like it was, clearly he said that Squad ISNT PR and thankfully so. So stop trying to base your whole argument on "PR this" "PR that". Go play PR

What you're saying is correct, it isn't PR (which means a 1:1 copy), but as per the myriad of media posted above, Squad was and (as far as I can tell) is still a spiritual successor to PR, which means drawing heavily on the experience they gained through PR's development as well as taking the best gameplay elements from PR and adding new and unique twists to them, both through new direction and because they have access to the engine source code. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as always "e-dicks" part of community showing themselves as toxic and cancer and i like that game starting to cure itself from it

 

 

btw! i can wave my e-peepee too. i'm plat3 in R6. i doubt that people who are choosing squad as a substitute for REAL competitive games can reach that high. gold2 maybe? @Robin Sage 1v1 me :D

i'm sure iskt guys can come up with their aas mod or something. or do you enjoy your edgy tactics on pub servers with a bunch of casual players? is that what you think "competitive" is?

Edited by lisasu

Share this post


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

as always "e-dicks" part of community showing themselves as toxic and cancer and i like that game starting to cure itself from it

 

 

btw! i can wave my e-peepee too. i'm plat3 in R6. i doubt that people who are choosing squad as a substitute for REAL competitive games can reach that high. gold2 maybe? @Robin Sage 1v1 me :D

i'm sure iskt guys can come up with their aas mod or something. or do you enjoy your edgy tactics on pub servers with a bunch of casual players? is that what you think "competitive" is?

You're saying that calling pubbies who don't play cohesively, words like "bad" and "suck", isn't conducive to a good team oriented competitive game?
I don't believe it!

Share this post


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

×