Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On ‎8‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 1:37 AM, MultiSquid said:

I'm still wondering about having the tanks with 3 crewmen instead of 2. Will the driver have something to besides staring out of the narrow slits  in front of him and twiddling his thumbs when the tank is stationary? Driving armored vehicles is already kinda boring, I imagine it will only feel worse when you'll have one more person in the vehicle that's actually doing something interesting while you as a driver are just waiting for a command to move.

If you want "Naysayer's Opinion" then I am highly against this for many reasons. 

1) Squad as the game literally supposed to be the embodiment of its name. Yes, at times it is boring to sit inside the vehicle and hear TC ordering you around, but it is highly critical. This is why I am also highly suggest for developers to add score for the crew of the vehicle(s). It doesn't seem fair that the gunner and commander will be racking up scores for all those *** measuring contests, while the driver have to suffer through boredom.

2) this is not Battlefield series (see ^). This game supposed to be the compromise between Milsim and battlefield enthusiasts. Going to all 2 man crews will simply bring up the questions "why the hell am I even playing this game, when there plenty of games like that with the same mechanics?"

3) Reiterating (those reasons are kind of one and the same), this game needs to be unique and not bow to the standard mechanics of the arcade shooters. In fact it should distance itself as far as possible from Battlefield and CoD series, more towards realism of ARMA series. Nobody wants to play "Another Call of Duty", especially with the newest Black Ops coming out pretty soon with its battle royale mode or (even though tanked) Battlefield V.

 

Realistically this was also the failure of Soviet Union, when they went with US in the arms race, both sides trying to match each other weapon for weapon and one up each other in said department. USA had more cash to do so and in the end won, especially when other Soviet States realized that they could not afford to compete. This is not any different of the small developer team of Offworld trying to compete against giants like EA and Activision.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


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

If you want "Naysayer's Opinion" then I am highly against this for many reasons...

Feels like most of the naysayers never tried playing PR. You know, the so-called predecessor to Squad, the game that was comfortably nestled at the sweet spot between arcade shooters and milsim games. The game that over 10 years of developement fleshed out most of its gameplay mechanics near to perfection, but somehow everybody just wants Squad to reinvent the wheel and be "different" from it. I find it funny that you guys acknowledge Squad isn't a milsim game and with the same breath you push for it to become one. There's no sense in bringing up real-life vehicle drivers as @Bahrein did earlier, they obviously have a much more engaging job than just pushing WASD, it's not even comparable. 

 

Comparison for the PR uninitiated, to clear things up:

  • Battlefield model - driver drives, controls the main gun and coax, second player controls his own MG - arcade, doesn't need any cooperation between the two players, stop assuming I want this, thank you.
  • Project Reality model - driver drives and has his own periscope with zoom, thus he can actively look for targets, second player controls the turret with coax, third player controls another MG and isn't really needed - this is what a compromise between realism and arcade looks like, and for me an ideal way to go about it. Driver and gunner have to cooperate and both have stuff to do at all times.
  • Realistic model - driver is bored in his little compartment, gunner is having fun, commander is scanning for targets, loader is... loading? - this is unsuitable for Squad, obviously

There's another reason why I don't want 3-man crews for tanks and it's the same as why 3-man helicopter crews make no sense: every player that's occupied crewing vehicles means one less player fighting over the objectives in an infantry squad, and infantry squads should be the vast majority of each team. Seems like a non-issue, right? What is Squid talking about, he damn crazy! Well, between the commander, multiple armored vehicle squads, mortars, transport and CAS pilots, we'll see less and less infantry until we come to a stage where we'll have to start backtracking and removing vehicles from the map layers.

 

I'll be sure to remember this conversation when I'll see people complaining that they're struggling to find crews for the vehicles because it's boring as hell to drive and look through three narrow slits for 40 minutes. It's literally the same issue we've been having with people not wanting to play medics or doing logistics runs. Why should we keep introducing/perpetuating issues because "muh realism" - which isn't even the aim of Squad - instead of solving them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

...

Pretty much this. Having separate gunner and commander may be useful in some scenarios, but in about 90% of the gameplay scenarios it's going to be completely overkill and it also means 50% more people in tanks, which leads to less overall engagement for the entire server. I know a 6 man vs 9 man armor squad doesn't sound like that much of a difference, but it ads up in the end.

 

On the other hand PR avoids giving the drivers offensive capabilities (in ground vehicles at least), since the commander periscope is never equipped with a machine gun.

Edited by Aleon

Share this post


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

If you want "Naysayer's Opinion" then I am highly against this for many reasons. 

1) Squad as the game literally supposed to be the embodiment of its name. Yes, at times it is boring to sit inside the vehicle and hear TC ordering you around, but it is highly critical. This is why I am also highly suggest for developers to add score for the crew of the vehicle(s). It doesn't seem fair that the gunner and commander will be racking up scores for all those *** measuring contests, while the driver have to suffer through boredom.

2) this is not Battlefield series (see ^). This game supposed to be the compromise between Milsim and battlefield enthusiasts. Going to all 2 man crews will simply bring up the questions "why the hell am I even playing this game, when there plenty of games like that with the same mechanics?"

3) Reiterating (those reasons are kind of one and the same), this game needs to be unique and not bow to the standard mechanics of the arcade shooters. In fact it should distance itself as far as possible from Battlefield and CoD series, more towards realism of ARMA series. Nobody wants to play "Another Call of Duty", especially with the newest Black Ops coming out pretty soon with its battle royale mode or (even though tanked) Battlefield V.

 

Realistically this was also the failure of Soviet Union, when they went with US in the arms race, both sides trying to match each other weapon for weapon and one up each other in said department. USA had more cash to do so and in the end won, especially when other Soviet States realized that they could not afford to compete. This is not any different of the small developer team of Offworld trying to compete against giants like EA and Activision.

 

This is a bit of a fallacy I've seen come up a lot.

 

Since the beginning Squad has claimed to sit between arcade shooters and mil-sims. You're saying it needs to move more towards mil-sim because viable 2-man crews are too arcadey but arcade games nearly always make combat vehicles effectively crewed by a single player.

 

To my mind effective 2-man crews are perfect for Squad and sit squarely between arcade and mil-sim. You need to communicate to be effective but it isn't boring for either player. I like commanders and loaders being an optional seat that can enhance a tanks effectiveness but are not required.

 

Adding a periscope to the driver also doesn't detract from the coordination between him and the gunner in fact it adds to it. When providing fire support the driver can act as a spotter which sounds a hell of a lot more interesting to me than sitting still looking at sand until the gunner says to move. This also doesn't detract from the commander since you can limit the driver periscopes zoom while giving the commander more features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reducing seats is preferable to giving those seats cheater capabilities they don't have in real life. Like remote operated machine guns.

 

It's a shame turret over turret has technical issues because combining commander and driver makes perfect sense as a compromise. The Stryker should work kind of like this by default too (gunner is also commander)

Edited by Good-Try Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have an idea. Let the driver open his hatch and give him binos it is more realistic than an own periscope but have a similar effect. + he is now killable for inf. 

Edited by Locke

Share this post


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

Feels like most of the naysayers never tried playing PR. You know, the so-called predecessor to Squad, the game that was comfortably nestled at the sweet spot between arcade shooters and milsim games. The game that over 10 years of developement fleshed out most of its gameplay mechanics near to perfection, but somehow everybody just wants Squad to reinvent the wheel and be "different" from it. I find it funny that you guys acknowledge Squad isn't a milsim game and with the same breath you push for it to become one. There's no sense in bringing up real-life vehicle drivers as @Bahrein did earlier, they obviously have a much more engaging job than just pushing WASD, it's not even comparable. 

 

Comparison for the PR uninitiated, to clear things up:

  • Battlefield model - driver drives, controls the main gun and coax, second player controls his own MG - arcade, doesn't need any cooperation between the two players, stop assuming I want this, thank you.
  • Project Reality model - driver drives and has his own periscope with zoom, thus he can actively look for targets, second player controls the turret with coax, third player controls another MG and isn't really needed - this is what a compromise between realism and arcade looks like, and for me an ideal way to go about it. Driver and gunner have to cooperate and both have stuff to do at all times.
  • Realistic model - driver is bored in his little compartment, gunner is having fun, commander is scanning for targets, loader is... loading? - this is unsuitable for Squad, obviously

There's another reason why I don't want 3-man crews for tanks and it's the same as why 3-man helicopter crews make no sense: every player that's occupied crewing vehicles means one less player fighting over the objectives in an infantry squad, and infantry squads should be the vast majority of each team. Seems like a non-issue, right? What is Squid talking about, he damn crazy! Well, between the commander, multiple armored vehicle squads, mortars, transport and CAS pilots, we'll see less and less infantry until we come to a stage where we'll have to start backtracking and removing vehicles from the map layers.

 

I'll be sure to remember this conversation when I'll see people complaining that they're struggling to find crews for the vehicles because it's boring as hell to drive and look through three narrow slits for 40 minutes. It's literally the same issue we've been having with people not wanting to play medics or doing logistics runs. Why should we keep introducing/perpetuating issues because "muh realism" - which isn't even the aim of Squad - instead of solving them?

 

And Squad is not an arcade type of game as well and i would not want it to be.If it was i would not have bouth it i would keep buying battlefield series and playing it with no team work every man for himself and one man tank guy.

If there are room for 3man guys in the tank it dose not mean you need to be in it for it to operate its just like BRDM have you ever been in one in game?

You have 3 positions but you are effective with one guy in it but not as efective as well as when all 3 guys would be in it.

I had an opinion of making a loader position in the abrams since that tank needs a loader guy to reload unlike Russian autoloader T72B3 but my opinion lost.And its ok i dont mind that. But one man tanks or vhic just becouse you and some other guys are bored driving it then don't drive it gun it if you are good or be an infantryman.

And SL alredy are strugling to have guys driving vhics as no one wants to do it everyone like to be an infantry guy killing.But thats not the case if you are in a clan or a tem or how ever you want to call it this type of guys are proes and when an SL says you doing that you driving that you get that kit everyone listens and do it and trust me that type of guys if you give them a vhic thy are werry good with it thy make more demage and more kills than your entire squad of only infantry.

We need vhiecles in this game and we will have it i am sure the number will be low i am sure and not ever map would have chopppers and tanks so you can relax of not having enough of infantry players.

Edited by Bahrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

People should be reasonable. Team is team. And tesm should decide which strategy and attitude thay pick up. Lets take some example where is visible what I mean 

Al basrah invasion v2 (i think when british first have to capture Airfield than bridge and so on) 

There if team realy cooperate. They will take at beggining 3 - 4 warriors and support infantry at open to conquer airfield, bridge and small military compound. After that team reduce warriors to 2 or even 1 and guys which seat out from warriors become pawns and rise numbers of infantry. 

Same scenario for first flag in main city and after that. Team should definitely leave Warrior idea because of risk of tickets and continue on completely at foot with high numbers. 

So lets say we have also tanks and helos in game. Now team has many options. Pure Armor, Armors with inf support. Infantry with armor support. Infantry. Supply on ground ? Supply on air ? How environment looks like ? What technique enemy use ? Are thay good with armor hunting ? Are thay good at ambushing infantry ? Have thay some armored units ? Many questions. If people realy play Squad with spirit thay start think how team should achieve victory. And adapt. Different situation different numbers of vehicles. This need time because atm players just want hunt kills and just few really enjoy team cooperation as a biggger unit. Responsible armors operators will give up and leave armor beast at main base after team get at place where armors are not neccesarry and instead they could cost team a valuable tickets.

Look at Kamdesh. Responsible team would take only one armor there and stay with full inf squad to protect it. What we see ? rushing hunting and ... ticket loosing fast and furious. But thats just players habbits. Run&gun everywhere. 

 

Edited by elerik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bahrein said:

And Squad is not an arcade type of game as well and i would not want it to be.If it was i would not have bouth it i would keep buying battlefield series and playing it with no team work every man for himself and one man tank guy... 

Who are you arguing with here? I guess there's just a lot of things lost in translation between us. 

Share this post


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

Who are you arguing with here? I guess there's just a lot of things lost in translation between us. 

I am not arguing with you at all arguing is something different.I am just stating my opinion and defending it.

Maybe it is lost i am sorry if you did not understand English is not my first language.

 

I forgot to mantion one more argument.

its also all about the balance why shoud you be able to one man a tank (beeing able to drive it and gun it like in BF games) if you want a tank you need a crew for it and its the cost of having it and playing with it why should your team be able to have a tank that is driven by one man while the militia or insurgents dont have any tanks.

Its pure and simple you want vhics you need to sacrifice some players that will not be on the ground (infantry) 

You want tanks (firepower) and the same amount of infantry players as well as militia or insurgents that do not have tanks on their side its just not fair.

 

 

Edited by Bahrein

Share this post


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

Pretty much this. Having separate gunner and commander may be useful in some scenarios, but in about 90% of the gameplay scenarios it's going to be completely overkill and it also means 50% more people in tanks, which leads to less overall engagement for the entire server. I know a 6 man vs 9 man armor squad doesn't sound like that much of a difference, but it ads up in the end.

 

On the other hand PR avoids giving the drivers offensive capabilities (in ground vehicles at least), since the commander periscope is never equipped with a machine gun.

In modern tanks commander can override and take control of the main gun, thus effectively being another gunner. He might also point the gun in danger direction and let the rest to the gunner. In some tanks he also has his own MG controlled by himself. Hope this stuff is implemented. It would make commander role more interesting.

 

What it means is that you are not safe because main gun is pointing the other direction. Commander has you pinpointed you unaware and turret makes one complete revolution in 8 seconds. That means max 4 seconds until you are dead by main gun, standing in the  straight opposite direction. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both currently in introduction stage tanks into Squad (M1A2 and T72B3) have independent TC weapons. C.R.O.W.S for Abrams and remote Kord 12.7mm machine for T72B3 respectively. And yes, in real life tanks, tank commanders can override the gunner's actions. However for the very good reason they do not, because they are vital for observation and command purposes of the vehicle (although modern panoramic sights negate that problem to some degree). Perhaps giving some kind of ability for the driver to be spotter would be nice as well (periscope with zoom in ability?). 

In either case currently M1A2 coming into Squad is going to be 4 man crew (1 is optional 240 gunner in the loader's position).

I think everyone who share the vehicle in squad should also be sharing scores for kills/assists/actions etc.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bahrein said:

its also all about the balance why shoud you be able to one man a tank...

It's literally in the post you yourself quoted. I'll make it more obvious so you can't miss it this time:

On 31/08/2018 at 8:30 AM, MultiSquid said:

Comparison for the PR uninitiated, to clear things up:

  • Battlefield model - driver drives, controls the main gun and coax, second player controls his own MG - arcade, doesn't need any cooperation between the two players, stop assuming I want this, thank you.
  • Project Reality model - driver drives and has his own periscope with zoom, thus he can actively look for targets, second player controls the turret with coax, third player controls another MG and isn't really needed - this is what a compromise between realism and arcade looks like, and for me an ideal way to go about it. Driver and gunner have to cooperate and both have stuff to do at all times. <--- this is what I'd like to see in Squad
  • Realistic model - driver is bored in his little compartment, gunner is having fun, commander is scanning for targets, loader is... loading? - this is unsuitable for Squad, obviously

Please read posts thoroughly next time, I've never ever said we should be able to 1-man tanks. I've been objecting to having 3-man tanks. There's a difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, the Abrams tank will even have a 4 men crew (loader). 

What's the point? 

 

The game still needs to be fun, while maintaining a demanding gameplay focusing on team play. 

Driver and loader will be boring as hell to play. 

This also reduce the overall Nummer of vehicles on the field. I imagine it will result in as boring tank gameplay as in post scriptum. 

 

I also believe PR had a much better approach, combining driver and Co.

Driving was fun because you had more things to do. 

Vehicle combat has great, 3 tanks vs 3. Witch was cool the play as crew or watch as infantry man. 

You could use some tactics, because you actually had some nummers.

 

Following post scriptum with their boring tank play will result in disappointment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously lol, you can easily man the abrams with 2 people from what i understand, with 3 or 4 players you'll just be more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about efficiency alone, it's about design choice. 

 

On steam, squad is advertising with "combine arms gameplay" and "50 vs 50 players. 

How will the gameplay looks and feels when you have to multi crew many vehicles with 3 people. How much infantry will be left on the field. 

 

Reduce the crew needed for vehicle and increase the nummer of assets on maps. 

The enjoyment you will get from gameplay will be massiv. 

 

This is one thing I loved in PR. Being a Rifleman in a 8 man squad, getting transported by chopper to the objective. Getting logistic support by trucks, fire support by apc. Tank battle in the distance. Jet fights over your had. All simultaneously on the same map, all by real players. Amazing! 

This is my definition of large player (50vs50) combine arms gameplay. 

 

I just don't see this happening with 3-4 man crews. 

Edited by Axel

Share this post


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

The thing is, the Abrams tank will even have a 4 men crew (loader). 

What's the point? 

 

The game still needs to be fun, while maintaining a demanding gameplay focusing on team play. 

 

"Driver and loader will be boring as hell to play." 

 

Do people actually read anymore?!? How in the heck will the loader seat be boring!

The Abrams also has a vehicle commander and loader's seat, both with their own cupola machine guns. The vehicle commander has an M2A1 Browning .50cal heavy machine gun mounted on a remote weapons system allowing for full 360-degree traversal and zoom capability. The loader's seat (while not required to actually load the cannon) is an extra seat on the turret with its own M240 machine gun.

Edited by WarEagle751

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why all the locomotion? You can get 4 ppl in ambras... if u don't want it, you can get away with only 2... no big deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NoNo vehicle role would be boring with interior moddeled :P id even play loader while sipping on beer or something if I could see myself actually loading the rounds in first person, also picking type of round would be cool, maybe some mod :)

 

Also dont know if it was mentioned, regarding component damage, would be cool if same worked with crew war thunder style. Killing driver in modern tanks is almost impossible, but killing commander or shooter would add interesting aspect to the game and would increase survivability of the actual vehicle (people dont matter, tanks are expensive ;)) while still removing its ability to functuon properly. For example a good aimed rpg to the turret would kill everyone inside so the driver would have to evacuate with limited visibility and no feedback of surroundings, giving him slight chance of saving the asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WarEagle751 said:

Do people actually read anymore?!? How in the heck will the loader seat be boring!

M240 machine gun.

Since zoom is every thing in the game right know, do you really believe you will get to shoot something when the CO has a CROW? 

But hey, will see how this work out.
 

Edited by Axel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

Seriously lol, you can easily man the abrams with 2 people from what i understand, with 3 or 4 players you'll just be more effective.

In reality of course, you need to be at least 3. I think a loader should be in the vehicle to be able to reload but doesn't have to do anything other than shoot with his MG. If he gets out then driver has to transfer to loaders seat in order to (re)fire. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't see the reason to make vehicles in game "more arcadey(ish)" and less realistic, since as already mentioned above the vast majority of vehicle crewmen in squad run either 2 man and quite often 1 man the vehicle.

 

So why not keep it realistic for those people who want to play "more realistic interpretation" of the vehicle (of course with the bonus that adding more crew makes better performance as the team, given that they are coordinating) and for those who support more arcade style gaming, with their choice is already being naturally supported by two or one man crews.

 

Its not like it is mandatory requirement to have "all or nothing" tank crew. So leaving the vehicles as realistic as possible, with realistic slots, while you will rarely ever see 4 or 3 man full crews seems to be win win for everyone. 

 

I would like to see the pie chart of percentage of what people like to play, but I highly suspect infantry and designated marksman are two of the highest chosen kits in game and at most 4 people per team on average per match, that take up armored vehicles.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


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

Is the ACOG Rifleman getting a Sidearm in V12?

I don't know why would they need one (hip firing M4 is pretty effective) and giving them offset weapon seems kind of the imabalance.

Share this post


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

×