Jump to content
Gatzby

January 2019 Recap

Recommended Posts

On 21/02/2019 at 4:49 PM, Hotpokkaminny said:

what do you think is more ambitious about Squad compared to PR?

while I understand building a game from the ground up is harder than making a mod on an old engine with 70% of the necessary assets already in the base game, but to me I don't see what about the actual design philosophy is more ambitious

my main gripe really is just the amount of stuff that has been ruled out without even being tested, VBIEDS, snipers, breaching ropes, politically inconvenient factions etc., bugs and slow development are whatever but the total aversion to any sort of risk is disheartening

greater engagement on the forums would be nice too, I know reddit has a larger reach but I don't think it's the best platform for detailed communication

PR does not intend to reach larger audience, its intent was always to remain relatively obscure, and I'm actually still surprised it reached as many people and regions as it did. I think it was a bit of luck, alot of hard work, and largely the great community that formed around it that gave it a very widespread "word of mouth" following that is still felt to this day!

Why Squad is more ambitious? Higher fidelity in all aspects, from graphics to sounds to view distances to authenticity of vehicles and weapons, weapon ballistics, vehicle physics & component systems, greater depth of logistics and strategic planning. Basically I think Squad is raising the stakes on most assets of combined arms. And the fact that its appealing to diverse crowd from hardcore milsim players to the  more casual players, makes it ambitious in that there is a huge segment and diversity to the playerbase, that simply not present in any of the design of PR.

 

To your point on stuff being ruled out, I think the key thing is there is a focus on community building and teamwork aspects of the gameplay. Not to say we wont be focusing on other aspects, but thats the main focus in developement of squad.

Things like VBIED's are already possible, just not specifically setup to be as user friendly like in PR... will that change in the future? perhaps, but I hardly think that it is holding Squad back from being ambitious project.

Snipers are not a focus simply because it doesnt add alot of value to the teamplay aspect, however we definitely do want to see ALOT more value placed on recon and intel of enemy dispositions, that simply is not that important right now and is something we want to change in the future. Things like ability for CO to change their vehicle composition, Fog of War for RAAS objectives, Territory Control game mode, would all help on this front. And I would much rather see a Forward Observer role added before a "Sniper" role. However we may get that anyways with SLs acting as such in the future with CO air assets.
Breaching ropes or ladders have not been ruled out, its just not an easy system to incorporate and the current vaulting and climbing animation system has made it less badly needed than it was in PR. But we still want a Breacher class to happen, but its not top priority, which again as I've said, is 100 players, Transport Helicopters and Commander.
Real life factions: I loved that PR had these. There is reasons why commercial games avoid having this kind of stuff. Maybe in the future these can be included but it was chosen not to do this for various reasons at the start of the project, and everyone has their own personal take on the topic. I'm sure mods will incorporate this stuff in the future, but I think there is a certain benefit to having factions a little lee-way to have some creative freedoms when it comes to uniform colors blending to map color palette and assets/configs on map layer creation.

I agree maybe more risks could have been taken, but I think in the last little bit you can see some more experimentation and new ideas, we do want to continue to push the envelope of what the UE4 engine is capable of!! All the while working the optimization and performance side so that normal PC's can jump in and play!
Most don't remember as it was so long ago and now it looks quite dated, but PR was an absolute performance killer, it was taking the Refractor 2 engine and bringing most PC's to their knees - and not necessarily because of bleeding edge graphics but rather because modders putting stuff in engines that aren't meant to handle them, and having no way to change said engine, causes alot of bad perf issues. The PR team did amazing work, but time was on our side - as players upgraded their PC's, the PR team was able to get away with more - one of the benefits of being a 13 year old modding project :)

Thanks for the feedback!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 1:49 AM, Hotpokkaminny said:

politically inconvenient factions etc

Because of this perhaps? Not that its a sure thing to happen to Squad, but if it was your company would you risk the whole game just for bringing ISIS into the game?
 


 

Edited by Jevski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the best thing is to just keep insurgents as generic as possible, that also gives the opportunity to 'borrow' stuffs from various groups. They doesnt even have to be jihadists. They can be anything from YPG to any african rebel group or even the IRA (as an example).

Edit: I personally dont think that we need a dedicated VBIED for ex, if we can plant IED:s on the techies and MC:s its fine. They are rarely effective but its fun to see the panic that occurs when a speeding MC are approaching. It helps to add that touch of irregular warfare that is needed for the insurgents.

Edited by Pluto is a planet
adding stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the reply @fuzzhead   good to see atleast one of our Devs showing some love to the Old Forum... ;)

Just wanted to hear about this because Myself & @SgtRoss had a little discussion about "Swimming" well He "Teased here,Hinted there".Yeah! If we gonna go with Realism, we should be able to drop kit or else... Swim or Sink!.

 

Cheers Boss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we need to play as ISIS beheading people and gunning down innocents, but I doubt there will be any tangible negative effects to naming a faction taliban (which they are) or IDF, any negative press (which I doubt would happen) would just be free advertising

would really love to see an african rebel faction

that being said, I don't care that much because it doesn't effect gameplay, it's just indicative of a fearful and negative approach to development imo

while putting IEDs in/on vehicles is one way to get VBIEDs in game, it's technically harder to do as the driver can't detonate it and as far as I can tell deployables (which IEDs are) aren't able to be moved in the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2019 at 8:06 PM, Hotpokkaminny said:

I don't think we need to play as ISIS beheading people and gunning down innocents, but I doubt there will be any tangible negative effects to naming a faction taliban (which they are) or IDF, any negative press (which I doubt would happen) would just be free advertising

would really love to see an african rebel faction

that being said, I don't care that much because it doesn't effect gameplay, it's just indicative of a fearful and negative approach to development imo

while putting IEDs in/on vehicles is one way to get VBIEDs in game, it's technically harder to do as the driver can't detonate it and as far as I can tell deployables (which IEDs are) aren't able to be moved in the game

Not sure if you watched the above video about Fallujah game, it's one example and there are other examples that show there can be consequences for putting realistic terrorist factions and depicting RL events in video games.

Is it being "fearful and negative approach"? I'm not sure, but it's not something I put particularly much thought towards - if the gameplay is good, why does it matter if they are called Insurgents or Taliban?

I'm certain mods will be made to change the names and also increase their likelihood to be more like real terrorist units, not something I particularly care about.

 

As for VBIED's, yeap good point.

But also brings up an interesting counterpoint - the current method actually increases the need for teamwork, the driver needs to be the trigger man, trigger man does have to be in the car (This would negate the need to construct a dead man's trigger and make sure it don't malfunction. )

 

Obviously, in public servers, this does not happen often as much because players want all the glory (being the driver AND the trigger man). We do have more interesting asymmetrical weapons and vehicles planned for Insurgents :)

Share this post


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

As for VBIED's, yeap good point.

But also brings up an interesting counter point - the current method actually increases the need for teamwork, the driver need to be the trigger man, trigger man does have to be in the car (This would negate the need to construct a dead man's trigger and make sure it don't malfunction. )

 

Obviously in public servers this does not happen often as much because players want all the glory (being the driver AND the trigger man). We do have more interesting assymwtrucal weapons and vehicles planned for Insurgents :)

I know it's Squads goal to encourage teamwork but that takes a different path when it comes to 'detonating' your team mate. Yes it's fun in a gaming sense but in reality it would be the driver of the VBIED who controlled his destiny and so it should be in game. Trying to orchestrate a VBIED in its current form is very problematic not helped majorly by the comms delay.

Share this post


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

I know it's Squads goal to encourage teamwork but that takes a different path when it comes to 'detonating' your team mate. Yes it's fun in a gaming sense but in reality it would be the driver of the VBIED who controlled his destiny and so it should be in game. Trying to orchestrate a VBIED in its current form is very problematic not helped majorly by the comms delay.

This is why my idea of making Garry controlled remotely by the Insurgent or Militia Commander makes the most sense because there's no suicide and ticket loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fuzzhead said:

Not sure if you watched the above video about Fallujah game, it's one example and there are other examples that show there can be consequences for putting realistic terrorist factions and depicting RL events in video games.

Is it being "fearful and negative approach"? I'm not sure, but it's not something I put particularly much thought towards - if the gameplay is good, why does it matter if they are called Insurgents or Taliban?

I'm certain mods will be made to change the names and also increase their likelihood to be more like real terrorist units, not something I particularly care about.

 

As for VBIED's, yeap good point.

But also brings up an interesting counterpoint - the current method actually increases the need for teamwork, the driver needs to be the trigger man, trigger man does have to be in the car (This would negate the need to construct a dead man's trigger and make sure it don't malfunction. )

 

Obviously, in public servers, this does not happen often as much because players want all the glory (being the driver AND the trigger man). We do have more interesting asymmetrical weapons and vehicles planned for Insurgents :)

to be fair that was a different time and it's depicting a real event, people don't tend to complain about playing as the nazis or commies anymore plus squad isn't actually depicting a historical event

that being said I really don't care, as long as the content is there it doesn't matter what it's called

while you're right that would increase teamwork and honestly it would be cool to watch, it's unrealistic and unfair to the driver who is taking 100% of the risk

it also means that taking out the driver isn't enough to take out the threat, which is a bit of a jarring experience

also forgot to mention that the deployable IEDs just aren't a big enough explosion to really make an effective VBIED, I miss seeing that hatchback driving into checkpoint on al basrah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 5:51 AM, Hotpokkaminny said:

this is mostly true and it's amazing to me that people defend the devs to such a degree

3 years and still no breachers, no choppers, no VBIEDs, no snipers, no insurgency, no weapon resting,  no ranking system and rushing is still the meta

90% of the decisions to change fundamental game design from PR have been downgrades and there is a complete lack of good maps

I imagine at this point the devs have realised they've probably made most of their revenue and are putting in the bare minimum

calm down mate I literally logged in to remind everyone we are getting fallujah and another dope map.

On 2/24/2019 at 8:06 PM, Hotpokkaminny said:

I don't think we need to play as ISIS beheading people and gunning down innocents, but I doubt there will be any tangible negative effects to naming a faction taliban (which they are) or IDF, any negative press (which I doubt would happen) would just be free advertising

would really love to see an african rebel faction

that being said, I don't care that much because it doesn't effect gameplay, it's just indicative of a fearful and negative approach to development imo

while putting IEDs in/on vehicles is one way to get VBIEDs in game, it's technically harder to do as the driver can't detonate it and as far as I can tell deployables (which IEDs are) aren't able to be moved in the game

Lets take into account that you simply must take into account that this is a game with respawns. Unless this was like post scriptum, where you get 1 life, VBIED drivers would be able to have 'ghost' intel that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Might as well add drones, invisible roadside IEDs, etc.

On 2/23/2019 at 10:58 PM, Jevski said:

Because of this perhaps? Not that its a sure thing to happen to Squad, but if it was your company would you risk the whole game just for bringing ISIS into the game?
 


 

Eh who cares I hope people aren't as sensitive nowadays. 

Share this post


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

Lets take into account that you simply must take into account that this is a game with respawns. Unless this was like post scriptum, where you get 1 life, VBIED drivers would be able to have 'ghost' intel that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Might as well add drones, invisible roadside IEDs, etc.

every player has intel that would be impossible IRL, it's not really a point against VBIEDs

VBIEDs were perfectly balanced  in PR, there's no reason not to have them in squad

we're getting drones and have had IEDs for ages so not sure what the point is here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hotpokkaminny said:

every player has intel that would be impossible IRL, it's not really a point against VBIEDs

VBIEDs were perfectly balanced  in PR, there's no reason not to have them in squad

we're getting drones and have had IEDs for ages so not sure what the point is here

USA is getting drones for now

 

I only care about Fallujah tbh. About time for a fresh CQC map.

Edited by ComplainersFFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I've read the a lot more classes will get either binos or a scoped weapon in v13, can anyone confirm this?

In the test build that was available briefly, a lot of classes had options to what optic was on their weapon, each selection with trade offs.
Rifleman could use their factions red dot or optic, as well as iron sights - But choosing an red dot or optic meant you had less utility items and no binoculars. 

It was only a test build, with a lot of experimental things in it - So I would expect there to be some changes on actual v13 release.

Share this post


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

In the test build that was available briefly, a lot of classes had options to what optic was on their weapon, each selection with trade offs.
Rifleman could use their factions red dot or optic, as well as iron sights - But choosing an red dot or optic meant you had less utility items and no binoculars. 

It was only a test build, with a lot of experimental things in it - So I would expect there to be some changes on actual v13 release.

Thanks. My biggest gripe in the game is not having binos. Has there been any timeline on a release for v13? (in b4 "3 weeks")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/7/2019 at 8:43 AM, Rainmaker said:

I certainly do recall a promise when I got 15+ people to back Squad ;) . Not only for fixed wing pilots but sniper kits aswell.
roles.jpg 

 

you are completely right in your posts, seeing as they wont even add body armor im starting to really question what they are thinking

Edited by Azor Ahype

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost like development goals change over time in commercial games, idk, like every game ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"they won't even add body armor" - that most trifling of things. Surely, though, you can see that it's not a minor thing to add, or, indeed, an issue that's vastly important to the majority of players? That commercial imperative simply outweighs your personal love of armour. I could see it having an interesting place in the game, actually, but I certainly don;t think it's that high on the 'wants' list.

This idea that what was aimed for constituted a promise is just weird. Do you not actually understand words? The developmental aspitation is simply not the same as a promise. Funders bought into the vision of the devs, and never had a concrete guarantee that the objectives in the early documents would be realised. That's really very simply to comprehend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about additional keybinds for local speak, that will be heardeble for both sides? Can we wait it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2019 at 12:46 AM, Guan_Yu007 said:

It's almost like development goals change over time in commercial games, idk, like every game ever.

Thats why I won't back 95% of early access games ever again. If they don't have money **** them. Go to the bank like I have, loan the money and do the thing you want. To avoid this kind of stuff because it happens very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I backed Squad knowing it wouldn't be like their origional goal, at least not 100%. I backed them because i wanted the PR developers succeed with a commercial game, tho over 500 hours in i'd say it has been worth it so far.

 

If you back any game thinking that the game will be exactly like the initial vision shown, then you're the issue for not researching how the industry and game development work lol. Same thing with pre-ordering big AAA games, at least indie developers communicate with the playerbase unlike big companies.

Edited by Guan_Yu007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that annoys me is that it's very clearly stated in Kickstarter stuff, as a rule, that the concepts are not guaranteed to succeed or to entirely be met by the final product. People get so annoyed by it, but it's idiotic. Squad betty clearly already meets to a good extent, the overall concept. Your personal foibles or expectations not being fully meet, regrettable as this may be in some cases, doesn't change that. 

Share this post


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

×