Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They need to add body armor and helmets for the armies in this game, i personally own both of these things as a freaking civilian, and i payed about 1k usd. to put that into perspective, the cost of a single tank shell in this game is the same or greater than that. no modern military would EVER send troops into a region without at least an IOTV rig and an ACH. it really ruins the balance of the game and the immersion of bleeding out from a guy shooting you in the chest with a pistol actually completely turns me away from this game(i have 425 hours too...) this is something i have been saying since i started playing the game and i have never once heard devs talk about it, which really bothers me

20190301_152246.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost impossible to imagine why you'd need that, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheRed said:

It's almost impossible to imagine why you'd need that, to be honest.

its called freedom, try it sometime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current damage model for most pawns and weapons is nicely balanced between arcade and Milsim at this point. My vote is leave it as is.

Share this post


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

The current damage model for most pawns and weapons is nicely balanced between arcade and Milsim at this point. My vote is leave it as is.

bleeding from a chest shot with a pistol is a laughable result, but it gets stupid fast. its not balanced in any sense of the word

Share this post


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

The current damage model for most pawns and weapons is nicely balanced between arcade and Milsim at this point. My vote is leave it as is.

^ +1

If one faction has body armour all will have to have it, as IRL it's not only issued to US forces. We'd all become bullet sponges so it would be like playing The Division and know one wants that :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scoobi said:

^ +1

If one faction has body armour all will have to have it, as IRL it's not only issued to US forces. We'd all become bullet sponges so it would be like playing The Division and know one wants that :(

uhh im not talking about the division, i hate that game. if you wanted a more specific example look to escape from tarkov or even WW3, they do it pretty well(even if the values they use for damage are too low sometimes). i feel like squad could do it better than all of them if they really tried, bullets already one shot to the head so it would just take some hitbox tweaks and maybe flat damage when hit in the armor instead of bloodloss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Azor Ahype said:

bleeding from a chest shot with a pistol is a laughable result, but it gets stupid fast. its not balanced in any sense of the word

Again you need to consider the bigger picture and how this would balance out across the factions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zylfrax791 said:

Again you need to consider the bigger picture and how this would balance out across the factions.

this is an asymetric game, there are supposed to be differences in factions. the INS factions are supposed to use a different playstyle to win the battlefield, and ill tell you, it freaking works lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An extra 16lbs or so of kit, it would certainly slow the running down, cause more damage when dropping from height and decrease stamina quicker and according to a BBC news report in 2016 "and that if soldiers go to ground with it they find it hard to get back up"   so Brits will need to stay prone for longer (time for a cup of tea).

As said above I'm for one happy with the game as it stands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, scoobi said:

An extra 16lbs or so of kit, it would certainly slow the running down, cause more damage when dropping from height and decrease stamina quicker and according to a BBC news report in 2016 "and that if soldiers go to ground with it they find it hard to get back up"   so Brits will need to stay prone for longer (time for a cup of tea).

As said above I'm for one happy with the game as it stands. 

so you are saying that having an actual downside would be bad game balance? im not sure i get what you are saying. yes INS should be more mobile because they dont have body armor, that compliments my point about their different playstlye being so effective. and slower transitions between stances makes just as much sense. you basically are proving my point that it could be done in a balanced way

Share this post


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

its called freedom, try it sometime

What? I'm pretty sure I'd be allowed to wear it if I want. I'm also allowed to wear a £3k carbon fibre giant golden sausage as a hat; that doesn't mean I consider it a worthy expression of fundamental freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have cleaned this thread. 

Keep these rules in mind when posting on these forums.

Spoiler

 

§1 Show Respect

This community can only work if we all respect each other. To that end, it is imperative that any time you engage with another user, either directly or indirectly, you show them respect with the content of your post. In particular refrain from flaming, insulting, abusing, taunting, racism, and other similar types of actions towards other forum users.

 

§2 Attitude & Behavior

Poor attitude and behavior are the most common ways a negative / unsafe environment is created and perpetuated. As such that kind of behavior will not be allowed on these forums. Please be mindful of this rule when posting personal positions and opinions regarding topics which could be considered contentious in nature. As a rule of thumb, keep your posts civil in nature, and refrain from making posts that are likely to incite arguments and create a negative environment. As a privately hosted web forum we reserve the right to maintain an environment that we are happy the majority of our players are comfortable with.

 

§4 Illegal Topics
Prohibited topics include, but are not limited to: Piracy, drugs (including cannabis), pornography, religion, racism, sexism, homo/trans -phobic content, videos and images showing violent death or serious injury, ‘spam threads’, hacking & griefing (endorsement thereof), religion, politics,  etc. Prohibition may be suspended for some threads if they are found to be suitable by the Moderation (such as scientific debate).
If there is doubt, the Moderation Team can decide whether a topic is considered illegal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line it seems to me like the devs have put a lot of thought into the TTK and balance portion of Squad. For what the game is it seems just about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what this guy does is stupid but not illegal( PLEASE DONT DO WHAT THIS GUY DID)

that being said it shows what body armor really does when you are shot and the fact that it only really has an effect on whether or not you would take real damage. i dont really get how people can say it has no place in a game built around asymetric gameplay. it wouldnt be bad for game balance and it would fix this whole crappy "sit on a hill taking pot shots at each other" meta. you should be able to confidently move into an area as a conventional force with confidence that you can win a firefight. shot placement as it stands is pretty useless, you just shoot center mass all the time with no real thought about where your shots are landing, it promotes a lazy play style that goes against squads fundamental theme(thinking critically is most certainly one of those things) INS forces dont really utilize their ambush nature like they should in this game, IEDs are an afterthought even though they make up 60% of modern warfare casualties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the others about the current TTK being good, so I don't really want to see body armour.

 

While it would be potentially interesting for Conventional vs Irregular layers they're only half the game. The issue when you introduce armour like you've suggested is that on conventional vs conventional layers it'll just mean players are more bullet spongy and move slower which is not something I really want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stom said:

I agree with the others about the current TTK being good, so I don't really want to see body armour.

 

While it would be potentially interesting for Conventional vs Irregular layers they're only half the game. The issue when you introduce armour like you've suggested is that on conventional vs conventional layers it'll just mean players are more bullet spongy and move slower which is not something I really want to see.

i see what you mean, but what distinguishes this game from Post Scriptum then? without body armor you are just mowing down platoons of guys like its WW2. there needs to be a middle ground to satisfy everyone, because as it currently stands its very biased balancing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TheRed said:

It's almost impossible to imagine why you'd need that, to be honest.

Good thing he doesn't need permission to 'need' something. Which is ironic because to need permission you'd have to get permission to need the permission to need... well you get the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 I agree , we should  have body armor. Now, insurgents or militia shouldn’t be selectable factions for AAS becuase in IRL the militia wouldn’t  go face to face with a conventional force.  I think this is where the gamemode enphasis plays a huge role between what factions are playble in which gamemode . For example : US vs RUS , both have body armor, conventional , no problem . That’s why they are perfectly set up for AAS. If a conventional force were to go against INS then it should be in insurgency gamemode because it would be asymmetricaly balanced. 

 

So wrapping up, i think they should implement a realistic body armor system after having the Insurgency gamemode well balanced.

Edited by maze2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is balanced mate, not sure how you think the game should work but pistols might aswell be thrown away if they can't make you bleed.

Also most lower body shots and even some upper body shost from a pistol or small caliber weapon do not result in bleeding(in-game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Filthy Crab said:

It is balanced mate, not sure how you think the game should work but pistols might aswell be thrown away if they can't make you bleed.

Also most lower body shots and even some upper body shost from a pistol or small caliber weapon do not result in bleeding(in-game).

try escape from tarkov, put on the best armor in the game, then come back when a guy with a TT one shots you through the exposed part of your armor.(also no disrespect but i see you have only had your account for like 15 days, i dont know if you have enough hours to call something "balanced" or not yet)

Edited by Azor Ahype

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, maze2 said:

 I agree , we should  have body armor. Now, insurgents or militia shouldn’t be selectable factions for AAS becuase in IRL the militia wouldn’t  go face to face with a conventional force.  I think this is where the gamemode enphasis plays a huge role between what factions are playble in which gamemode . For example : US vs RUS , both have body armor, conventional , no problem . That’s why they are perfectly set up for AAS. If a conventional force were to go against INS then it should be in insurgency gamemode because it would be asymmetricaly balanced. 

 

So wrapping up, i think they should implement a realistic body armor system after having the Insurgency gamemode well balanced.

i agree with your statement completely, it could be balanced on the game mode side of things so that you arent put into a game where both teams have the exact same objective. INS launching a frontal assault to take a town would be suicidal(theres plenty of vids of them getting completely screwed trying to mimick combined arms tactics, but they tend to just get picked off on the way in because they dont have proper armor)

Share this post


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

try escape from tarkov, put on the best armor in the game, then come back when a guy with a TT one shots you through the exposed part of your armor.(also no disrespect but i see you have only had your account for like 15 days, i dont know if you have enough hours to call something "balanced" or not yet)

qaI7jtk.png
Ok mate.

You should probably go back to EFT if that is the main point of reference you are going to use. What kind of hours have you got? I think you need to look at how you're evaluating someones comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Filthy Crab said:

qaI7jtk.png
Ok mate.

You should probably go back to EFT if that is the main point of reference you are going to use. What kind of hours have you got? I think you need to look at how you're evaluating someones comment.

well considering i clicked on your profile and your account is barely 15 days old, i would have no way of knowing that... that being said, im not going to "go back to tarkov" i was using it as a damn example, i wasnt trying to start a freaking contest lol, i have 427 hours in the game dude... also if you arent willing to use another devs work as a reference for balanced gameplay you are being really biased to OWI on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Filthy Crab i should also ask you what the difference between squad and post scriptum is then? both games are simply infantry slaughterfests without armor, the only difference being there wasnt body armor invented in WW2, so at least that historically makes some sense. can you name a reason besides "its fine how it is" that they would treat modern warfare like WW2? im genuinely interested in what you think

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

×