Jump to content
CrazyBear

[Suggestion] -> Limit the number of spawns on HAB (supply lines)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hello soldiers !

Squad wants to be a « Tactical Military First Person Shooter » where tactics and strategy are the key to victory. However, there is one thing that limits the development and implementation of certain tactics, it’s the HAB. It’s completely absurd and unrealistic to see the infantry appear in unlimited quantities from anywhere (HAB)! Thus, the tactics of encirclement are useless which is contrary to the reality. No advantage is gained by encircling the enemy.

 

MAIN IDEA :

So, I thought about limiting the number of spawns on the HAB.

The advantage of an FOB / HAB is the fact that any squad can spawn on it. Until today its second advantage, completely abusive, is the unlimited spawns. By limiting the spawns, the HAB doesn’t lose its essential advantage, the spawn of the entire team.

The HAB should be like the big brother of the RP and therefore operate in the same way. I'm thinking about "40" spawns, because 40 players in the team (9 for the RP). When the number of spawns is over, the HAB disappears, or becomes damaged until new construction points are received.

We could think about adding a 3rd resource but it’s not a good idea. What will be at the back of the logistic vehicle? Imaginary troops? In this case the other vehicles also should be able to supply the HAB in number of spawns. This makes the game too complicated ... the first idea is simple and effective.

 

EXEMPLE :

Let's see a good example on Fools Road:

1524962307-fools-road-aas-v3-fob-lim.png

Link to the image -> HERE

 

US forces took “Papanov” under control, the best strategy here is to block the arrival of US reinforcements. It was done by blocking "North Village" by the RUS forces. No transport and / or logistic vehicle can pass for going to “Papanov”. But because of the fact that the US reinforcements can appear massively from anywhere, which is absurd, this strategy is useless.

 

CONCLUSION :

Thus, limiting the number of spawns on the HAB allows us to put forward the notion of "supply lines", which has an important place in the war.

Finally, it allows us to make new tactics instead of being wrecked by encircled enemies because of the building (ex: Yehorivka-Storage-SouthOuest Building) where they are.

 

 

What do you think, gentlemen?

Edited by CrazyBear

Share this post


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

Don't like it.

Can you explain please ?

I hope it's not because it makes you leave your comfort zone.

Share this post


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

Can you explain please ?

Well, because in public games you don't get to cherry-pick the level of competitiveness of each player. Such drastic change as the one you're suggesting here (limiting the spawns of a given FOB to 40 tickets as opposed to unlimited) will widen the skill gap between a well coordinated Team A and a not so well coordinated Team B. People play games to have fun right? 

 

If the argument is for "realism" (you since edited your original post) then let's look at how realistic is it to have people spawn on a magical rally or HAB (limited or not) in the first place...

 

Alas, I was actually playing as U.S. on Fool's Road just the other day where the opposite team had a well-coordinated team of BTR's ambushing our supply lines. We did have an active FOB on Papanov and my squad was holding it but those damn BTR's were killing our logis and strykers one by one as they got out of main. Even after I put markers on the map, repeatedly told other SL's what's happening AND wrote in team chat what's happening ; Other SL's figured it was okay to drive an unprotected logistical truck straight into enemy BTR's that were clearly marked on the map...Same went for individual strykers that got creamed by the 30. Now added to this shitty situation is a FOB rendered inactive for insufficient spawns?...nah...Don't like it....Our team was already on a losing path as is...

 

I think for the sake of public games leave the FOB's as is because after the passive regen was removed, more emphasis was already put on logi runs which are still not being done properly or not at all due to lack of individual reward/incentive. This is STILL the reality that there's not many people willing to step up for logi runs because they would rather shoot...and I don't blame them...

 

Moral of the story: If you want more competitiveness, there are clans for that. SquadOps does 1-life event. You might be interested in that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problems with coordination will be solved by adding the "Commander" Role. The squads will move towards a common aim fixed by the commander, and don't do anymore what they believe to be correct each one on its side.

 

When I was talking about realism I forget to talk about the supply lines, my bad. The argument is the supply lines and it doesn't make the game too much difficult.

Those BTR's which were spawnkilling your vehicles, this kind of thing have not to be allowed by the server rules, add to this that supply lines have to be protected ! (Cutting supply line and spawnkillig isn't the same thing) In addition the arriving of the TAW will cancel the BTR 30 supremacy. Or should we be able to make some constructions near our main base to avoid that ?

Concerning the logi runs you can just make a rotation and ask another guy to do it, it always works well enouth in my squad.

 

Squad isn't Battlefield to be a simple FPS.

Share this post


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

The squads will move towards a common aim fixed by the commander

It has been debated to death. If you take a look at those threads you'll see some of the ups and downs of commander. One thing you'll see with Commander is that SL's have big enough of an ego as is and putting a commander above them (with or without mutiny vote) will just translate into more debates on command channel because SL's will want to do one thing and a commander will demand them to do another. Both ways may help the team but the whole argument that would ensue could hinder the performance because instead of fighting, they'll be arguing. Simply put, a vast majority of SL's cannot compromise because their ego is too big. 

 

24 minutes ago, CrazyBear said:

Those BTR's which were spawnkilling your vehicles

Technically no. They were on the road north of the river, the one that connect Train Station, Mine Entrance and Village. They did a phenomenal job at ambushing our vehicles. It wasn't spawnkilling. 

 

31 minutes ago, CrazyBear said:

In addition the arriving of the TAW will cancel the BTR 30 supremacy

On large open maps, perhaps. But a stationary TOW is manned by a soldier that can be shot at (I'm speculating). Considering a 30mm has anti-personel frag rounds, a TOW won't pose a major threat to a 30mm on a long narrow road like the ones on Fool's Road. 

 

26 minutes ago, CrazyBear said:

should we be able to make some constructions near our main base to avoid that ?

Maybe, but then those emplacements are open to be used by a sneaky enemy. All they'll have to do is hide near the TOW until a vehicle passes by then hop on the TOW and destroy the vehicle leaving main...

 

36 minutes ago, CrazyBear said:

Squad isn't Battlefield to be a simple FPS

Very true, but Squad is also not a military simulator like ARMA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I kind of like the idea but a better way is to not be able to build fobs on an objective imo.

Edited by Guan_Yu007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything would fall into place if they render inactive the spawn at hab when X enemies are, say, 50mts from it.

 

No more Spawning in the firefight!, no more building in the flag (that would be a mistake), etc...

 

No need to change much more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are going to extend the spawn time or were supposed to have done that when enemy close, thus spawning doesnt turn into a meat grinder (read the Feb or March release)... 

 

 

I dont like the idea of limiting the spawns BUT I do think there should be a supply need on a  fob to spawn... this would ensure that logis are needed constantly to help keep the fob maintained with value, and rallies need reloaded from supplies at the FOB, its the rallies that should be limited they act more like the star trek transporter warp thingy than a fob.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, CrazyBear said:

Problems with coordination will be solved by adding the "Commander" Role. The squads will move towards a common aim fixed by the commander, and don't do anymore what they believe to be correct each one on its side.

 

When I was talking about realism I forget to talk about the supply lines, my bad. The argument is the supply lines and it doesn't make the game too much difficult.

Those BTR's which were spawnkilling your vehicles, this kind of thing have not to be allowed by the server rules, add to this that supply lines have to be protected ! (Cutting supply line and spawnkillig isn't the same thing) In addition the arriving of the TAW will cancel the BTR 30 supremacy. Or should we be able to make some constructions near our main base to avoid that ?

Concerning the logi runs you can just make a rotation and ask another guy to do it, it always works well enouth in my squad.

 

Squad isn't Battlefield to be a simple FPS.

you cant stop the spawn camping .. infact its a valid supply line cut off imo,   have two main bases and the enemy have to decide how to split their camping vehicles would make it a more difficult strategy.

 

  Commander role is going to be as bad as the medic role in terms of who wants it... Red Orchestra have it but most of the time it was just to call in firesupport and tbh I dont want some trumped up Patton yelling at me in chat.. ... Ill be interested to look at post scriptum to see how they handle the fire support (hopefully soon !)  

 

Supply lines should be something that are cut off more by teams, logi runs should be supported by armed vehicles as a convoy but Squad public games dont do that, there are too many wanna be tank commanders wanting to sit on hills and snipe or rush headlong into a close quarter battle with a BTR.

 

Id love to see squad get back to is tactical roots but I think its lost to the TDM mentality of many but thats another discussion.

 

 

 

 

Edited by embecmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just no, the idea makes little sense to me. And, besides what @CptDirty was talking about, consider that we still have Squad in it's Alpha state, developers haven't yet finished shaping out the game, so all these "what if" posts seem strange and non-constructive to me.

 

P.S. But I do like the tactical marks on the map :) would love to see something like that in-game

Share this post


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

Supply lines should be something that are cut off more by teams, logi runs should be supported by armed vehicles as a convoy but Squad public games dont do that, there are too many wanna be tank commanders wanting to sit on hills and snipe or rush headlong into a close quarter battle with a BTR.

+1 

 

Which is the reason why I LOVE the new logi system because I can put max construction points on it in the beginning and be able to activate multiple FOBS/HABS without ever going back to main. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2018 at 11:46 AM, CptDirty said:

It has been debated to death. If you take a look at those threads you'll see some of the ups and downs of commander. One thing you'll see with Commander is that SL's have big enough of an ego as is and putting a commander above them (with or without mutiny vote) will just translate into more debates on command channel because SL's will want to do one thing and a commander will demand them to do another. Both ways may help the team but the whole argument that would ensue could hinder the performance because instead of fighting, they'll be arguing. Simply put, a vast majority of SL's cannot compromise because their ego is too big. 

A few comments about this:

1) Back in the BF2142 days I used to SL and Command a lot. I actually had ~75% compliance with orders I gave as long as they were tasks that were actually able to be accomplished. The remainder generally didn't argue, they just ignored you. I think your negative outlook assumes a kind of community that isn't nearly as prevalent here as other games. I have very few problems leading squads or coordinating with the majority of squad leaders.

 

2) My favorite server had a simple solution to insubordination: kick the offending player. It was a server rule that you had to properly obey orders. Blatant insubordination and failing to play as a team was an immediate kick. Multiple offenses was a ban. Server admins can make or break the quality of teamwork on the server in a variety of ways. On servers where teamwork is encouraged and promoted everyone works together much more closely.

 

3) SLs generally aren't fighting a lot anyway, which renders the whole point sort of moot. A good SL spends the vast majority of the time communicating, coordinating his squad's movements with other squads, marking the map, using his binoculars, placing rallies/fobs/defenses, etc., etc. If you're constantly fighting in the trenches you're probably neglecting a lot of critical SL duties.

 

4) Psychology/history teaches us that most people respond to power structures with little resistance. Most people fall into line and play their role rather than resist. I think the vast majority would respond well to a Commander.

 

5) In real life there is the same back and forth between commanders and their subordinates. However it is viewed as positive communication instead of arguing because the lower level subordinates always have more awareness of the battlefield than the commander. It is expected and encouraged (in the U.S. military) for subordinates to provide feedback about orders when it is impossible to comply with them or if the subordinate is able to articulate a more effective solution to the problem.

 

There is a reason why real militaries use the command structure they do. The U.S. military, in particular, has poured vast sums of money into researching how to effectively structure their organization and lead troops to maximize their combat effectiveness. The current system is the result of decades of trial and error combined with research. All of that experience and academic work has shown that the unified leadership of a single individual is vastly preferable to any downsides. And don't get me started on the sociological research of organizations in general.

Share this post


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

A few comments about this:

1) Back in the BF2142 days I used to SL and Command a lot. I actually had ~75% compliance with orders I gave as long as they were tasks that were actually able to be accomplished. The remainder generally didn't argue, they just ignored you. I think your negative outlook assumes a kind of community that isn't nearly as prevalent here as other games. I have very few problems leading squads or coordinating with the majority of squad leaders.

 

2) My favorite server had a simple solution to insubordination: kick the offending player. It was a server rule that you had to properly obey orders. Blatant insubordination and failing to play as a team was an immediate kick. Multiple offenses was a ban. Server admins can make or break the quality of teamwork on the server in a variety of ways. On servers where teamwork is encouraged and promoted everyone works together much more closely.

 

3) SLs generally aren't fighting a lot anyway, which renders the whole point sort of moot. A good SL spends the vast majority of the time communicating, coordinating his squad's movements with other squads, marking the map, using his binoculars, placing rallies/fobs/defenses, etc., etc. If you're constantly fighting in the trenches you're probably neglecting a lot of critical SL duties.

 

4) Psychology/history teaches us that most people respond to power structures with little resistance. Most people fall into line and play their role rather than resist. I think the vast majority would respond well to a Commander.

 

5) In real life there is the same back and forth between commanders and their subordinates. However it is viewed as positive communication instead of arguing because the lower level subordinates always have more awareness of the battlefield than the commander. It is expected and encouraged (in the U.S. military) for subordinates to provide feedback about orders when it is impossible to comply with them or if the subordinate is able to articulate a more effective solution to the problem.

 

There is a reason why real militaries use the command structure they do. The U.S. military, in particular, has poured vast sums of money into researching how to effectively structure their organization and lead troops to maximize their combat effectiveness. The current system is the result of decades of trial and error combined with research. All of that experience and academic work has shown that the unified leadership of a single individual is vastly preferable to any downsides. And don't get me started on the sociological research of organizations in general.

Wow ok...where to start....

 

I guess the big picture you're missing here is that Squad is a tactical FPS and isn't a 1:1 representation of real life behavior between members of a given military and their superiors/subordinates. If you wish to have a military simulator then that's your ARMA III realism units...As far as Squad is concerned, I highly doubt they will emphasize a "chain of command" in terms of ranks, stats and hierarchy as they did a good job of staying away from those topics each time they came up in the forums. Typically those are things you need in order to move up in real life military, right?

 

From allllllll the topics ever made about commander role and it's ups and down there was a general consensus:

- Commander role will best be implemented as a supportive role to the SL's and not a "I'll demote you if you don't do as I say". 

 

So this whole conversation is basically repeating what was already said in other threads specifically related to the commander role. I personally think Commander role has great potential of being a helping tool to the SL's with whatever perks/gadgets it will come with, however, if such role is implemented with the idea that SL's MUST obey orders or get kicked then cross your fingers and squeeze your butthole because it will have some really negative outcome. In that horrible case, what would stop a troll (and there are A LOT OF THEM ON SQUAD) from causing harm to the team with the tools available to them as the commander?....Those are the question you need to ask yourself....Right now, all it takes is for 1 dumbass at the beginning of a round to grief a logi/armored vic and cause the team a horrible slow start which inevitably will decide the outcome of the match....That's the reality...

 

Additionally, since there's no way to qualify the credentials of each player to the role they hold (SL & Commander) then take yourself out of this situation and look at it objectively:

 

Commander with 3 hours in the game 

SL with 1400 hours in the game

 

^ which one would you rather? 

 

Regardless of what Odin said (somewhere in a topic I can't remember which one) about being able to open the game and letting it run idle for 300 hours. That is a valid point, and I understand the problem, but that stems from an even bigger problem (stats) which is a whole other topic.

 

Also:

Quote

If you're constantly fighting in the trenches you're probably neglecting a lot of critical SL duties.

Not necessarily true. I can bring my squad to a defense cap, put the rally, put the fob/hab, and fight with my squad...That's 9 guns shooting instead of 8...

 

/end rant

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your outlook on the player population is generally pessimistic, while mine is generally optimistic. It's not really worth discussing further since we won't agree unless one of us changes our point of view.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never "commander", it should be a service to the squad leaders not a chain of command, call it "intel support" and give it all the same tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/05/2018 at 2:39 PM, suds said:

never "commander", it should be a service to the squad leaders not a chain of command, call it "intel support" and give it all the same tools.

 

Where is the problem ? SQUAD is still in "alpha" and we are here to improve it. Where is the problem to implement the commander and see how the results will be ??? Just because of your pessimistic theories... gentlemen the experts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I will tell you why I don't like it. For one infinite Spawns on FOB are due to the fact the meant to represent the drop off point for the fresh meat to be sent into combat. Since you cant realistically simulate this in game, you have to use FOB and rally points as such. In real life as casualties mount, reserves are brought in to replace casualties. Because of that in real life, reserves closely follow front line troops to take up the gaps. Obviously that is how Squad have it as their version of reinforcements.

 

So... to your problem with Papanov. - I dont know why or how but 100% of the maps I played, US always lost. Why? Because opposing forces against US only have to do one objective. That is cut off basically the only supply route from US Main across the bridge and plant super FOB or two FOBs near the village. Even if the team rushed FOB Papanov at the start, since their only supply route is cut off through the Village and its area, they are basically in frank and literal words are f#$ked.

 

Because of this even inexperienced players learned on this map to simply rush the village and completely block off US or whatever unlucky team starts behind that Southern bridge advance. Even if US forces take Papanov it is very easy to send one AT heavy squad or even better one or two BTRs and camp that bridge approach to Papanov. 

 

US Army is infact in serious disadvantage on this map (or whatever team/faction is unlucky to start behind the bridge).

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Caliell said:

That is cut off basically the only supply route from US Main across the bridge and plant super FOB or two FOBs near the village.

To be fair, U.S. spawn has 2 ways in/out not only the bridge...

 

2bz1wv.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn´t sound bad  but i would instead do the following:

Make fobs unaspawnable when enemies are close within a certain distance, example: 125m. It´s pretty simple but extremely effective  because when you attack a fob people stop spawning so you avoid massive waves of people coming from habs . This is the current type of system that PR has and has worked for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Caliell said:

I will tell you why I don't like it. For one infinite Spawns on FOB are due to the fact the meant to represent the drop off point for the fresh meat to be sent into combat. Since you cant realistically simulate this in game, you have to use FOB and rally points as such. In real life as casualties mount, reserves are brought in to replace casualties. Because of that in real life, reserves closely follow front line troops to take up the gaps. Obviously that is how Squad have it as their version of reinforcements.

You are right, and this is why I was talking about hab limitation. There are no reinforcements from "anywhere" ! You get encircled, you get f*cked. Add to this that I heard from their videos that they want to make it even "more realistic". They want transport trucks to be more used. And the degree of realism they want in their game is proven/demonstrated by their wish of diversification (look at the vehicle differences !). I was talking about this with my first messages but people came here to explain how wrong I was instead of trying to understand me. "SQUAD isn't Arma 3", I never said that, Arma 3 is completly another game. Yes, maybe the hab limitation isn't the best idea, but the fact is, that spawn mechanics have to be changed.

 

Your lost games are due to your SLeaders. Actually each one is doing what he thinks good for the victory wich is not always for the common objective wich allows the victory. Here is why we need the "commander". He will make everyone agree on a common objective. Then SLeaders will chose what and how to do it, attacking defending etc. As I said SQUAD is still in alpha phase so we just have to test it instead of listening those "experts" telling us how the commander role will be bad.

 

Last important thing for SQUAD is the "Control Zone" game mode with the front line. The AAS game mode, is not strategy. That is always the same thing, a concentration of menpower in a specific place at a specific moment/time. Even the improvised AAS will not solve the problem, this will just get us play other zones on the map.

The real strategy is chosing you own objective, on the map. Reaching this objective will be your tactics. (Without going into details) This is why "Control Zone" have to become THE game mode of SQUAD.

 

Many SLeaders will be lost, but the time shows us that today's SLs are better than yesterday's. They are making choises faster, thinking about having a transport truck next to them to be able to move quickly to another point etc. So here there will no be problems, dont be scared.

 

New Spawn Mechanics + Commander Role + Control Zone game mode

     will make SQUAD a real strategic/tactic FPS.

 

PS: This is my opinion/vision of SQUAD in the future. You like it or not, you can off course take your time to explain me how wrong I'm. But time will show us who were right. Off course if devs continue their actual line of developpement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CptDirty said:

To be fair, U.S. spawn has 2 ways in/out not only the bridge...

 

2bz1wv.jpg

Notice how far is the second exit and how vital it is to capture Papanov and build FOB somewhere there and between the next point. If OPFOR rushes the village, the second exit provides very poor alternative due to how far that roundabout to Papanov, not to mention you have to literally make the drive through now enemy controlled territory.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyBear said:

You are right, and this is why I was talking about hab limitation. There are no reinforcements from "anywhere" ! You get encircled, you get f*cked. Add to this that I heard from their videos that they want to make it even "more realistic". They want transport trucks to be more used. And the degree of realism they want in their game is proven/demonstrated by their wish of diversification (look at the vehicle differences !). I was talking about this with my first messages but people came here to explain how wrong I was instead of trying to understand me. "SQUAD isn't Arma 3", I never said that, Arma 3 is completly another game. Yes, maybe the hab limitation isn't the best idea, but the fact is, that spawn mechanics have to be changed.

 

Your lost games are due to your SLeaders. Actually each one is doing what he thinks good for the victory wich is not always for the common objective wich allows the victory. Here is why we need the "commander". He will make everyone agree on a common objective. Then SLeaders will chose what and how to do it, attacking defending etc. As I said SQUAD is still in alpha phase so we just have to test it instead of listening those "experts" telling us how the commander role will be bad.

 

Last important thing for SQUAD is the "Control Zone" game mode with the front line. The AAS game mode, is not strategy. That is always the same thing, a concentration of menpower in a specific place at a specific moment/time. Even the improvised AAS will not solve the problem, this will just get us play other zones on the map.

The real strategy is chosing you own objective, on the map. Reaching this objective will be your tactics. (Without going into details) This is why "Control Zone" have to become THE game mode of SQUAD.

 

Many SLeaders will be lost, but the time shows us that today's SLs are better than yesterday's. They are making choises faster, thinking about having a transport truck next to them to be able to move quickly to another point etc. So here there will no be problems, dont be scared.

 

New Spawn Mechanics + Commander Role + Control Zone game mode

     will make SQUAD a real strategic/tactic FPS.

 

PS: This is my opinion/vision of SQUAD in the future. You like it or not, you can off course take your time to explain me how wrong I'm. But time will show us who were right. Off course if devs continue their actual line of developpement.

 

The only way I see how you said to implement such thing is to make Squad akin to Company of Heroes, where capturing "Zones/Sectors" instead of "Objective Points" will be feasible. Otherwise the game engine cannot register the actual "Encirclement" at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been waiting for nine months (since it was announced in the September 2017 Recap) that I await news on Territory Control. In fact we do not know yet ...
As for Fob and RP, the Devs have said several times to want to change them to get a slower and more cohesive game flow. Probably already from the next Recap we will have info about it and with the V12 we can try them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tmac said:

V12 we can try them.

Correct.

Will respond more in depth to the ideas here but short on time atm

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

×