Jump to content
NaCly

Why I dont want Helicopters

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Axel said:

Good point.

Do we then have a design problem? Map design? or do we need more then 100 players?

 

I think some peoples concerns are that if we keep adding vehicles, whether that's helicopters or ground. It will detract from what I believe some people are already feeling from v12 and that's, loss of infantry combat in a sense of combined coordination and communication between infantry squads. That coordination definitely doesn't feel as solid since v12. It's that type of teamwork that only intensifies the combat for both teams. Whatever it was, that feeling of raw, in the thick of it combat, has disappeared a little.

 

Adding more than 100 players is more easily said then done but it would fix a lot of problems. I don't think map design is to blame.

 

I also think vehicles in their current state are too independent hence why you rarely have interaction with the players operating them.

Edited by Quadro

Share this post


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

 

I think some peoples concerns are that if we keep adding vehicles, whether that's helicopters or ground. It will detract from what I believe some people are already feeling from v12 and that's, loss of infantry combat in a sense of combined coordination and communication between infantry squads. That coordination definitely doesn't feel as solid since v12. It's that type of teamwork that only intensifies the combat for both teams. Whatever it was, that feeling of raw, in the thick of it combat, has disappeared a little.

 

Adding more than 100 players is more easily said then done but it would fix a lot of problems. I don't think map design is to blame.

 

I also think vehicles in their current state are too independent hence why you rarely have interaction with the players operating them.

Yeah, vehicles run alot on their own. Not often do i get transported by a stryker or btr or not at all by a warrior or bradley. Very rarely do i get effective fire support of a vehicle on an obj unless there is an enemy vehicle present.

It works very well as a force multiplier though.

Last night, only me and one other person in my clan were playing squad and i wasn't feeling like sl'ing pubbies so we went scout car.

It was on talil, so i didn't want to drive around the outside of the bunker since evry vehicle around is heavier than us, so i drove in carefully, pushing up with our infantry. As close as shoulder to shoulder at some points and it worked beautifully. My gunner dc'd midgame and had to rejoin but still ended up with 24kills - 0 deaths - 36  downs. If she did not dc, would probs be around 50.

Share this post


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

Yeah, vehicles run alot on their own. Not often do i get transported by a stryker or btr or not at all by a warrior or bradley. Very rarely do i get effective fire support of a vehicle on an obj unless there is an enemy vehicle present.

It works very well as a force multiplier though.

Last night, only me and one other person in my clan were playing squad and i wasn't feeling like sl'ing pubbies so we went scout car.

It was on talil, so i didn't want to drive around the outside of the bunker since evry vehicle around is heavier than us, so i drove in carefully, pushing up with our infantry. As close as shoulder to shoulder at some points and it worked beautifully. My gunner dc'd midgame and had to rejoin but still ended up with 24kills - 0 deaths - 36  downs. If she did not dc, would probs be around 50.

 

Exactly. Vehicles work beautifully when used in that way but for the most part they just run around doing their own thing. The loss of boots on the ground has created a new dynamic to the game. Vehicles/helicopters should always be a part of Squad but it has effected other things negatively. How to go about this? Takes some serious thinking. 

Share this post


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

 

Exactly. Vehicles work beautifully when used in that way but for the most part they just run around doing their own thing. The loss of boots on the ground has created a new dynamic to the game. Vehicles/helicopters should always be a part of Squad but it has effected other things negatively. How to go about this? Takes some serious thinking. 

More players should fix that somewhat, also not having 2 strykers, 2 abrams and a bradley along with helicopters would help. Basically, less vehicles available in main, depending on the map ofcourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 10 extra guys it shouldn't be a problem. Even if you have 15 guys in Vehicles there will be 35 left for infantry. And now there are issues with transportation when all logis are parked at random locations on the map so Helos would help the infantry to get to the combat zone and to move from one objective to another so infantry fighting should improve since the infantry squads doesnt have to run for a km to get to the next flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-12-07 at 12:27 AM, NaCly said:

I'm a huge fan of Squad and absolutely love the gameplay that it offers. I am all for helicopters being a mod but putting it into the actual game I believe will make it feel more like Battlefield. I love squad because of the infantry tactics you can use with the support of light vehicles. Ever since V12 came out though ive noticed a breakdown in communication between squads because everyone wants to get into a tank and do there own thing. Next thing you know you have 2 maybe 3 full infantry squads trying to work together with 3 other squads with either 2-4 people in them. Its much harder to push objectives and be strategic when you only have 2 infantry squads who are actually playing the objective. 

 

Now this is my complete personal opinion but i feel that adding helicopters will further add to this problem where you only have a limited amount of infantry squads actually playing the objective. Itll create more 2-4 man squads and less full 9 man squads which will make taking objectives harder. 

 

And lets be honest. Adding attack helicopters to this game will completely destroy the use of light armor and squads being able to out maneuver the enemy as they can spot them with thermals from way above. All it takes it one good Attack helicopter team to destroy an enemy team. they can easily destroy logis, armor and infantry from a distance. 

 

I just hate seeing only a couple infantry squads trying to take an objective while theres 3 separate 3 man squads in tanks and then a leftover infantry squad with 5 people in it. 

 

I know I was all over the place but adding helicopters is making this game feel more like battlefield. To me squad thrives on infantry squads coordinating together. With the addition of more vehicles it is taking away the feeling of this tactical type of gameplay between infantry squads. Adding Helicopters will just make the game more unbalanced and make it harder for squads to take the objective with less boots on ground. Like I said before, all it takes is one good attack helicopter team to destroy an entire team.

 

To me it almost seems like there needs to be more people in the game rather than just 40v40. I dont think ive ever been in a game where its 40v40. maybe 38v38 but never 40v40. if you break it down like this you can see how theres less infantry in play. 

 

Squad 1: x9inf

Squad 2: x9inf

Squad 3: x9inf

Squad 4: x2 brad

Squad 5: x2 brad

Squad 6: x2-3 abram

Squad 7:x2-3 helo

Squad 8: x1 logi

 

This breakdown seems like the absolute best outcome. 3 full infantry squads and then a you 4/5 squads that are small support groups. If those support squads could somehow be 1 squad I think there would be better coordination and less carelessness of vehicles being used. 

 

To sum up my rant ill just say that adding Helicopters can make the game very one sided. It will also further takeaway more infantry squads trying to take an objective. 

 

Project Reality had helicopters so just get used to the idea. It is combined warfare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2018 at 1:17 PM, koschilein said:

What you are saying tactic wise is simply not true,

 

 

not untrue just different opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/12/2018 at 1:57 PM, Quadro said:

 

I think some peoples concerns are that if we keep adding vehicles, whether that's helicopters or ground. It will detract from what I believe some people are already feeling from v12 and that's, loss of infantry combat in a sense of combined coordination and communication between infantry squads. That coordination definitely doesn't feel as solid since v12. It's that type of teamwork that only intensifies the combat for both teams. Whatever it was, that feeling of raw, in the thick of it combat, has disappeared a little.

 

.

def agree, the combined element is not working well but again down to the players not the vehicles... tactics are only as good as the players using them... 

 

as an example from last night invasion at Basra didnt get past the airport... reason was the armour kept leaving to do its own thing and left the troops to run across open ground ... no amount of mortar fire was going to help cover.. I asked several times to get armour support for my squad but people dont listen they just want to go shoot crap with a tank rather than think about what they are actually achieving in a team game. ... with no armour support infantry are now very exposed... This is not the games fault for adding armour.

 

 

Edited by embecmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

The only way to fix this issue is by playing on community servers that enforce teamwork tbh.

"Enforce Teamwork"

 

By what? Kicking them from the match? They'll just go to another server or most likely just go play another game. This is an ersatz solution.

 

Instead, the game should be standalone and promote balance and teamwork from within the programming of the game mechanic itself to the point where you don't need gamer nannies.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

def agree, the combined element is not working well but again down to the players not the vehicles... tactics are only as good as the players using them... 

 

as an example from last night invasion at Basra didnt get past the airport... reason was the armour kept leaving to do its own thing and left the troops to run across open ground ... no amount of mortar fire was going to help cover.. I asked several times to get armour support for my squad but people dont listen they just want to go shoot crap with a tank rather than think about what they are actually achieving in a team game. ... with no armour support infantry are now very exposed... This is not the games fault for adding armour.

 

 

One of the most brilliant minds in the industry; John Carmack created what I consider the benchmark for team-based objective-oriented FPS games with his ET:QW and people always played the objectives because each and every one of them was so unique & challenging plus it required a specific role to achieve.

 

I think people just simply get fatigued playing what is basically a linear series of CTF objectives that require no role specialization to accomplish. This is why they go free range and leave you hanging.

Share this post


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

By what? Kicking them from the match? They'll just go to another server or most likely just go play another game.

It's pretty simple, have admins, and other players from the community not all in one squad, but at least two squads for both teams. This way teamwork between those will be guaranteed, which often encourages the randoms in both teams to also try and work together better. It has done miracles for me so far. Maybe enforce was the wrong word to use, encourage seems more accurate.

Tho when i find random squad leaders with their squad doing nothing to contribute the team i start asking what's going on, if they simply explain their ideas and plans, it's all fine usually, if they straight up ignore the other squad leaders, or start being "not nice" then it's easy to enforce it using warnings.

Kick or bans are 99% of the time not nessecary, simply because we stay friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

One of the most brilliant minds in the industry; John Carmack created what I consider the benchmark for team-based objective-oriented FPS games with his ET:QW and people always played the objectives because each and every one of them was so unique & challenging plus it required a specific role to achieve.

 

I think people just simply get fatigued playing what is basically a linear series of CTF objectives that require no role specialization to accomplish. This is why they go free range and leave you hanging.

That is the type of play I think I have envisioned for Ludendorrf bridge WW2 map where you have this impassable river to get across and only one bridge that can get armor across it still standing, so the fight is over the bridge and getting to the other side as quick as you can and protect the bridge from being blown up as well.  No time for people to go off on adventures the whole focus is that bridge the number one objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, XRobinson said:

That is the type of play I think I have envisioned for Ludendorrf bridge WW2 map where you have this impassable river to get across and only one bridge that can get armor across it still standing, so the fight is over the bridge and getting to the other side as quick as you can and protect the bridge from being blown up as well.  No time for people to go off on adventures the whole focus is that bridge the number one objective.

Arnhem bridge in Post Scriptum is like this... it can be just a slug fest but people do try to work better together because there is only one objective at the start... get across the bridge... failing that the game is over.   Squad with its muliple known objectives there is no real tactics other than the same thing every round... and that wont change with Helicopters ... the supposed tactics will remain exactly the same... get troops as quickly as possible to block an enemy capture of a flag or stop them pushing yours.    This will entail splitting forces into multiple small units ... of armour / infantry / logistics... people confuse the 'Ill back cap whilst you guys rush' as some sort of tactics...  but ultimately the force is split and with each squad having their own mini objective that is actually not helping the current team objective, there is no real co-ordination, just this illusion of one. ...  Even when Squad does try to do this with invasion where its a matter of taking the first flag ... you have squads off doing their own thing rather than working with the team to secure it.  I was hoping to see more of the maps where the next objective was hidden until the previous captured but have not played that once...

Edited by embecmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, embecmom said:

I was hoping to see more of the maps where the next objective was hidden until the previous captured but have not played that once...

That's upcoming from what I've heard. Fog of War added to the RAAS mode should really have an effect on the Mad Max race to Thunderdome meta for sure. In the SDK the flag sequence order is determined by something called the lattice so the guys are probably modifying this so there are some kind of delays in the visibility of the flag selections. This will really add a great dynamic to the game for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also really need to avoid romanticizing the squad coordination in V11.  A typical match was a really good one if we even had all the infantry squads pursuing objectives on contestable points.  And the average SL aimed for internal coordination on the level of dropping a rally near the enemy and then hoping soldiers wandered mostly towards the shooting.  Unless you had a clan on board even the basics were a nightmare.

 

And then the level of teamwork required to Squad effectively went up with V12.  A ton of systems and synergies are being underutilized.  Even stuff as fundamental as getting riflemen to drop ammo bags is a mystery to the majority of players.  Is this the game's fault?  Maybe.  But I don't think asking them to completely outlaw new hardware is the right approach.  Educational UI, communication tools, and dedicated tutorials are probably a better way to handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2018 at 9:55 AM, Skidborg said:

We also really need to avoid romanticizing the squad coordination in V11.  A typical match was a really good one if we even had all the infantry squads pursuing objectives on contestable points.  And the average SL aimed for internal coordination on the level of dropping a rally near the enemy and then hoping soldiers wandered mostly towards the shooting.  Unless you had a clan on board even the basics were a nightmare.

 

And then the level of teamwork required to Squad effectively went up with V12.  A ton of systems and synergies are being underutilized.  Even stuff as fundamental as getting riflemen to drop ammo bags is a mystery to the majority of players.  Is this the game's fault?  Maybe.  But I don't think asking them to completely outlaw new hardware is the right approach.  Educational UI, communication tools, and dedicated tutorials are probably a better way to handle it.

Happy Christmas to all, The rush is the main problem which has been prevelant across all iterations ... but I still think some sort of achievement based support system could help a little.. I was all for it being squad based so only squads could earn their own and provide whatever support for themselves be it vehicle / supplies/ etc...  But perhaps with the 'commander' role, positive action builds command support points that could be used to provide the airstrikes/armoured vehicles etc... without the teamwork then those points will only build very slowly.. ..  As an example perhaps needing an airstrike or armour.. squad decides to leave a defense flag..means the pts are slow to build .. the commander can then ask for that squad to move back.. and the reason why...

 

More pts for combined arms vs lone wolf tank.. etc... 

 

perhaps a little convoluted but   we are maybe reaching too high in thinking a bunch of guys randomly coming together on a server will ever reach nirvana based teamwork and tactics because of the freedom the game offers and we just have to accept the weakness in this type of model, or the game has to evolve to 'force' teamwork through a specific reward system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think rush mechanic will always remain where there is a series layout. Area denial is a legitimate tactic, but it shouldn't be so simple as getting to one place first.

 

I think the new modes coming with a territory component and isolation having a direct consequence should help.  This way if a team rushes, an effective counter would be to encircle them etc. They'd have no logistics, maybe no points possible or whatever so would have to get support or try to break out. It will be possible to create genuine strategic pushes in order to create and ultimately destroy salients. It will be worth establishing defensive hardpoints outside of caps. Allocation of resources will matter.  Fog of war will become a thing in terms of force size etc. Etc etc etc. I really hope they implement that mode well because I think it has the best long term potential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing I see stopping rushes is randomizing locations (as in your first flag is known but the next one is unknown whilst all hostile flags that aren't in play are unknown unless earlier revealed). Also the the whole points for teamwork system only rewards the better team, which then gets even more ways to curbstomp the team that isn't functioning as well. Completely halting enjoyment of the game for 50% of the match causing them to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the commander role can help with coordination, especially if they have tools available to help out overall, or with specific squad level problems. It's just like having a good SL, if they ask you to do things that make sense, you'll do it. As will others in your squad, leading to a higher level of coordination than in a squad with an idiot SL. In the same way, a good commander will get SLs to cooperate. 

 

One of the puzzles with the overall meta is that any infantry squad can operate completely independently on the teamwide level. Which is both good and bad. They can drop FOBs, TOW, AA, mortars. etc. Which doesn't encourage teamwide cooperation. I'm not suggesting that this should be changed necessarily, but it should be noted. Would there be more cooperation if only dedicated roles could build and fire mortars? Or AA? Or logi? Yes? Would it make the game better? Maybe? Hard to say. That freedom also allows a single good squad to carry an entire team.  

Edited by LugNut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To come back on the missing "boots on the ground" topic.

I believe the commander seat in vehicles was a bad design idea, i would have preferred a PR approach. Combining driver  and commander seat in one, were as driver you would press "f" and gain access to the commander optic.

To illustrate, I just played a round of Tallil as Russian. 2 Tanks and 2 APCs, all fully crewed with 3 people. Taking away 4 people from infantry, for a mostly useless position inside a vic. On top, of course all were driving in the middle of no where. 0 support for INF.

I mean, the OP have a point. And i also wonder how will this evolve with addition of helicopters or other assets, taking even more people away form the INF part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2018 at 6:09 PM, LugNut said:

I think the commander role can help with coordination, especially if they have tools available to help out overall, or with specific squad level problems. It's just like having a good SL, if they ask you to do things that make sense, you'll do it. As will others in your squad, leading to a higher level of coordination than in a squad with an idiot SL. In the same way, a good commander will get SLs to cooperate. 

 

One of the puzzles with the overall meta is that any infantry squad can operate completely independently on the teamwide level. Which is both good and bad. They can drop FOBs, TOW, AA, mortars. etc. Which doesn't encourage teamwide cooperation. I'm not suggesting that this should be changed necessarily, but it should be noted. Would there be more cooperation if only dedicated roles could build and fire mortars? Or AA? Or logi? Yes? Would it make the game better? Maybe? Hard to say. That freedom also allows a single good squad to carry an entire team.  

I would say it would slightly improve teamwork although dedicated Logistics is painful most of the time in PS as there is only 1 and if they suck ..its gameover ... Im leaving my opinion on the commander role over at the other thread on that specific subject... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 5:56 PM, Gadaffi said:

Helicopters will change the whole game for good. If you have not played Project Reality, then you can not understand how important they are. Now the main system of troops' transportation is only this "arcade" system of rally points. With helicopters (especially transport helis) the whole game will become more tactical and strategic. I strongly believe that PR has so much balance between gameplay and tactical cooperation and I hope to see that balance at squad as well..

Just like how currently we use APC's and transport trucks 9_9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Riflewizard said:

Just like how currently we use APC's and transport trucks 9_9

The difference is you have an inconceivable number of people who want to show you how great of a pilot they are and will beg you to take a ride with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2018 at 9:31 PM, Rybec said:

The difference is you have an inconceivable number of people who want to show you how great of a pilot they are and will beg you to take a ride with them.

is that like some of the NYC cab drivers?......

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

×