Arcady Milsim? Suggestions.

[JohnDoe]

Heya Squaddies.

 

So I have been wondering lately, does anyone else feel like the game (despite v10 update changes) is still too arcady when it comes to movement and shooting? Despite this game being one of the leaders of the tactical realism military genre.

 

You can get rather easily "sniped" by a BTR sitting 500 meters away, often leading to "BTR Squads" just going lone wolf to get easy kills. I feel as if accuracy is still too precise on longer ranges, the only ones being able to do some proper killing from these ranges should be skilled marksmen, not some armor squad sitting too far away for anyone to deal with them. I would imagine that matches would be way more immersive if you would barely be able to hit anything at that range, and basically just do suppression, forcing you to move with other infantry squads. Same with 50.cal bunkers, although they are rather easy to take care of, they can snipe you from across the map (kohat toi as an example) with good accuracy. Where's the immersion in that? 

 

If there was a greater "randomness" to aiming anywhere further than 250m I think teams would move better together, work better together, you wouldn't die easily and frustratingly (like when running somewhere with your squad, and a BTR sitting hundreds of meters away sprays half of you down), squads wouldn't go lone-wolf as a BTR for easy kills, etc. Let the snipers and mortars take care of long-range threats. Firefights would be longer and more immersive.

 

Just some thoughts of mine, anyone agree/disagree? feel free to start the discussion.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by JohnDoe

[CptDirty]

It's one big balancing act. Being able to appeal to a larger audience while at the same time provide a platform for more organized groups and especially modders to take the base game and transform it into a specific play style is what makes squad great. 

 

As for long range engagements, there's always a rock-paper-scissors mechanic where in public matches a well rounded squad can turn the tide on an enemy fortified position with emplacements and vehicles. Knowing that .50 cal bunkers will be getting optics will allow for much better usability which is something they have been severely lacking thus far. 

 

The "randomness" factor while aiming reminds me of BF2 which was horrible and I wouldn't want to spray and pray to get a kill. If I aim at something it better hit....

[JohnDoe]

36 minutes ago, CptDirty said:

The "randomness" factor while aiming reminds me of BF2 which was horrible and I wouldn't want to spray and pray to get a kill. If I aim at something it better hit....

Fair enough! I liked that about BF2 personally, but that's just a matter of taste I guess.

[Vegetal]

But a BTR is indeed capable of engaging effectively at longer ranges than infantry. Not much of a way around it.

 

You have to have in mind that vehicle damage is going to change, and I have the feeling they will be more vulnerable.

 

Also, in general, the longer range you are talking about is usually below 500m, which is reasonable for decent accuracy.

[LugNut]

If a BTR wants to kill you caught out in the open at 500m, it's not going to have any problem doing it. 

 

 

[Nightingale87]

I do get what you mean. But then again...500 mts is just 5 blocks. Then imagine a BTR stading next to you, and an infantry squad crossing the Street at 500 mts....half of them would be lucky to make it.

[JohnDoe]

17 hours ago, Nightingale87 said:

I do get what you mean. But then again...500 mts is just 5 blocks. Then imagine a BTR stading next to you, and an infantry squad crossing the Street at 500 mts....half of them would be lucky to make it.

True. I still do feel like there's too much accuracy with most weapons at ranges. 

 

Maybe it's less of a problem that the BTR's seem overpowered to me, but more as teams aren't focusing enough on it, not enough teamwork taking them out. Maybe..

[Jiggerlube]

22 hours ago, CptDirty said:

The "randomness" factor while aiming reminds me of BF2 which was horrible and I wouldn't want to spray and pray to get a kill. If I aim at something it better hit....

unless you have a 20 year old mil spec m16, and under combat conditions. you don't always hit.

[Rybec]

4 hours ago, JohnDoe said:

True. I still do feel like there's too much accuracy with most weapons at ranges.

Infantry-wise maybe. It's far too easy as a rifleman with optics.

However with vehicles it's completely different. It is important that vehicles are scary in Squad. When a BTR rolls around and there's no LAT nearby I go "Oh shit it's time to hide". That should happen.

When vehicles can be disabled (since that's planned) you will have a beautiful balance in gameplay where vehicles are scary to you but you are also scary to vehicles. It will feel like they aren't that untouchable anymore.

[JohnDoe]

23 minutes ago, Rybec said:

However with vehicles it's completely different. It is important that vehicles are scary in Squad. When a BTR rolls around and there's no LAT nearby I go "Oh shit it's time to hide". That should happen.

Good point! Agreed one that I guess

[fatalsushi]

8 hours ago, JohnDoe said:

Good point! Agreed one that I guess

Plus, inf will get tows and javelins and such.

[JohnDoe]

11 hours ago, fatalsushi said:

Plus, inf will get tows and javelins and such.

Can't wait for that. Javelins and tows yes please.

[TheGenera1]

Vehicles are fine imo, as mentioned above, it's the lack of suppression and the OP optics that feel overpowered.

[Smee]

Sorry think the weapon systems don't not enough accuracy at present.  500m isn't anything for the modern day shells.   I don't think you should be running around expecting the BTR/Strykers not to nail you at 500m. The CROW shouldn't have drop. These assets should be feared. 

 

 

[v76]

Bring on infantry only servers, give us back the awesome, intense gameplay we had pre vehicles and the basic spawn spam of fobs/habs

Edited April 20, 2018 by v76

[Zylfrax791]

Considering the inclusion of the testing branch which means basically there are two version of the game currently running it seems like it would almost make sense at this point to evolve the game into two different versions; a realistic MilSim version and an Arcade version to make everyone happy and regrow the community. You could give each version some flashy name like "Squad Elite Competition" and "Squad Platinum Pro".

 

Squad Elite Competition would be the version to satisfy all the competitive MilSim folks with a focus on realism. All the roles would be restricted like they are currently plus the vehicles would have seriously high ticket value and no re-spawn plus the rush meta would be added back in. Of course there would be many other realistic elements added in as well. Elite Competition mode would also have ranking, stats and vote kicks etc.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, Squad Platinum Pro would be a complete arcade game with a focus on pure fun for everyone including new players. No role restrictions, no ticket value for vehicles with instant re-spawn, infinite fob supplies and all the traditional TDM, CTF & TKOTH modes in addition to AAS, Insurgency and Invasion modes.

[CptDirty]

2 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

it would almost make sense at this point to evolve the game into two different versions

+1

[Stom]

41 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Considering the inclusion of the testing branch which means basically there are two version of the game currently running it seems like it would almost make sense at this point to evolve the game into two different versions; a realistic MilSim version and an Arcade version to make everyone happy and regrow the community. You could give each version some flashy name like "Squad Elite Competition" and "Squad Platinum Pro".

 

Squad Elite Competition would be the version to satisfy all the competitive MilSim folks with a focus on realism. All the roles would be restricted like they are currently plus the vehicles would have seriously high ticket value and no re-spawn plus the rush meta would be added back in. Of course there would be many other realistic elements added in as well. Elite Competition mode would also have ranking, stats and vote kicks etc.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, Squad Platinum Pro would be a complete arcade game with a focus on pure fun for everyone including new players. No role restrictions, no ticket value for vehicles with instant re-spawn, infinite fob supplies and all the traditional TDM, CTF & TKOTH modes in addition to AAS, Insurgency and Invasion modes.

 

That's not really a reasonable request.

 

You'd be creating two different branches of the game that would require their own development and support. Especially given that Squad is still in Early Access it doesn't really work from a developmental standpoint.

 

Also, this would split the playerbase. While this is an argument that has been brought up against modding I feel if it were two official branches of the game they would be far more disruptive to communities.

[MeFirst]

Squad is not "Milsim"

Quote

Squad is a large scale combined arms multiplayer first-person shooter that aims to capture combat realism through communication and teamplay

I know a lot of people think it "should" be Milsim, but I think Squad is just it's own thing. Somewhere between Battlefield and ArmA 3 in its very own position. 

 

A lone BTR is a wasted asset and it is most of the times also wasted tickets. Right now a BTR is worth 15 Tickets (not sure about V12). That means the BTR has to reduce the tickets of the other team by 15,  just to get on neutral level when it comes o ticket efficiency. That makes the BTR (and similar assets) valuable and a lone BTR will often die without even getting close to being ticket efficient. 

[Zylfrax791]

11 hours ago, Stom said:

 

That's not really a reasonable request.

 

You'd be creating two different branches of the game that would require their own development and support. Especially given that Squad is still in Early Access it doesn't really work from a developmental standpoint.

 

Also, this would split the playerbase. While this is an argument that has been brought up against modding I feel if it were two official branches of the game they would be far more disruptive to communities.

Considering there are somewhere around a million Steam key holders and daily peaks hovering around the 2000 range after nearly 3 years one could draw the opposite conclusion. That's a dismal percentage of 0.2%. If Chevrolet made a million 2019 Mommy Missile XLT's and sold them to dealers and only 2000 customers bought them that model would be gone the following year. Logically then, those key holders are currently playing other games they find more suitable to their tastes, most likely at the opposite ends of the spectrum than the hybrid game Squad.

 

Giving existing key holders who were otherwise alienated by Squad for a wide variety of reasons the opportunity to re-join and grow the community couldn't be a bad thing though now could it? Certainly observing how many choices other similar highly successful games within the genre give their community could be an indicator that offering both an Arcade and MilSim experience would grow not split or disrupt the community.

 

 

[Nightingale87]

6 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Considering there are somewhere around a million Steam key holders and daily peaks hovering around the 2000 range after nearly 3 years one could draw the opposite conclusion. That's a dismal percentage of 0.2%. If Chevrolet made a million 2019 Mommy Missile XLT's and sold them to dealers and only 2000 customers bought them that model would be gone the following year. Logically then, those key holders are currently playing other games they find more suitable to their tastes, most likely at the opposite ends of the spectrum than the hybrid game Squad.

 

Giving existing key holders who were otherwise alienated by Squad for a wide variety of reasons the opportunity to re-join and grow the community couldn't be a bad thing though now could it? Certainly observing how many choices other similar highly successful games within the genre give their community could be an indicator that offering both an Arcade and MilSim experience would grow not split or disrupt the community.

 

 

But that sounds like developing and supporting 2 games. Thus twice as many hours to pay the workers, twice as much in publicity, etc. So...it´s up to the company.

 

It´s much easier to come up with a moddable engine and base game that community can later mod to its taste.

[SpecialAgentJohnson]

On 2018-04-13 at 10:08 PM, Rybec said:

Infantry-wise maybe. It's far too easy as a rifleman with optics.

However with vehicles it's completely different. It is important that vehicles are scary in Squad. When a BTR rolls around and there's no LAT nearby I go "Oh shit it's time to hide". That should happen.

When vehicles can be disabled (since that's planned) you will have a beautiful balance in gameplay where vehicles are scary to you but you are also scary to vehicles. It will feel like they aren't that untouchable anymore.

Exactly. You should FEAR some assets. That creates excitement. Other stuff is arcady. Don't know how reducing aim would be less arcady?(!) It would just be Battlefield again. Boring as hell, and it's just about the person being being able to jump up and down the most that wins all the fights without any assets strategy whatsoever, because assets aren't important because all assets can always defeat all assets at all time. Totally boring. 

On 2018-04-12 at 6:28 PM, JohnDoe said:

Heya Squaddies.

 

So I have been wondering lately, does anyone else feel like the game (despite v10 update changes) is still too arcady when it comes to movement and shooting? Despite this game being one of the leaders of the tactical realism military genre.

 

You can get rather easily "sniped" by a BTR sitting 500 meters away, often leading to "BTR Squads" just going lone wolf to get easy kills. I feel as if accuracy is still too precise on longer ranges, the only ones being able to do some proper killing from these ranges should be skilled marksmen, not some armor squad sitting too far away for anyone to deal with them. I would imagine that matches would be way more immersive if you would barely be able to hit anything at that range, and basically just do suppression, forcing you to move with other infantry squads. Same with 50.cal bunkers, although they are rather easy to take care of, they can snipe you from across the map (kohat toi as an example) with good accuracy. Where's the immersion in that? 

 

If there was a greater "randomness" to aiming anywhere further than 250m I think teams would move better together, work better together, you wouldn't die easily and frustratingly (like when running somewhere with your squad, and a BTR sitting hundreds of meters away sprays half of you down), squads wouldn't go lone-wolf as a BTR for easy kills, etc. Let the snipers and mortars take care of long-range threats. Firefights would be longer and more immersive.

 

Just some thoughts of mine, anyone agree/disagree? feel free to start the discussion.

You are talking about making the game more arcady and less realistic because you don't want to be shot from far away strolling down the hill out in the open. How about moving in cover with APCs covering your advance? You know... Use... Some... Strategy...

 

A tank can mow your entire squad down from 4km at pitch black night btw. So 500m daytime is not impressive at all actually. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by SpecialAgentJohnson

[Zylfrax791]

6 hours ago, Nightingale87 said:

But that sounds like developing and supporting 2 games. Thus twice as many hours to pay the workers, twice as much in publicity, etc. So...it´s up to the company.

 

It´s much easier to come up with a moddable engine and base game that community can later mod to its taste.

Yes. What was I thinking? Why on earth would we possibly try different things to maybe fill up the 260 empty potential servers that people are paying $100 a month for?

 

https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/squad

 

Instead lets just keep doing exactly what we've been doing the last three years like some digital George Costanza and simply hope the next patch or some "Free Weekend" will bring back all the players....

 

Seriously dude, when I wake up at 4am PST there is one server active; West Coast Tactical and maybe a few people trying earnestly to populate another NA server on the east coast. That's it.

[CptDirty]

43 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Yes. What was I thinking? Why on earth would we possibly try different things to maybe fill up the 260 empty potential servers that people are paying $100 a month for?

 

https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/squad

 

Instead lets just keep doing exactly what we've been doing the last three years like some digital George Costanza and simply hope the next patch or some "Free Weekend" will bring back all the players....

 

Seriously dude, when I wake up at 4am PST there is one server active; West Coast Tactical and maybe a few people trying earnestly to populate another NA server on the east coast. That's it.

 

 

[Nightingale87]

4 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Yes. What was I thinking? Why on earth would we possibly try different things to maybe fill up the 260 empty potential servers that people are paying $100 a month for?

 

https://www.battlemetrics.com/servers/squad

 

Instead lets just keep doing exactly what we've been doing the last three years like some digital George Costanza and simply hope the next patch or some "Free Weekend" will bring back all the players....

 

Seriously dude, when I wake up at 4am PST there is one server active; West Coast Tactical and maybe a few people trying earnestly to populate another NA server on the east coast. That's it.

Don´t see the need to be ironic.

 

Either I don´t understand you or you don´t understand me. I don´t see what your point is. 

 

is it that player base is small???

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Nightingale87