Jump to content
Gatzby

Alpha 13.1 Released

Recommended Posts

Using the argument "just because the majority want it doesn't mean it is the best" or "squad is turning into a kiddie pool" are childish as **** comments. 

 

I'll dumb it down to the level of the argument. 

 

For the first one, that is like if 9 out of 10 kids want to play with the red ball but the 1 wants to play with the blue ball. Neither ball is better than the other just because of what it is. There is no best.  There is simply the more wanted ball and less wanted ball. Simply wanting the blue ball doesn't make it better than the red ball... thinking otherwise is childish. The majority don't want snail paced squad for a reason.  Doesn't matter what the reason is... the majority want it, so the minority can be mature and adapt or they can find a new ball to play with.

 

The kiddie pool comment is a childish elitist comment. You aren't more of an adult for spending more time walking around a map in a video game.  You aren't some badass for playing the game slowly. You aren't getting more of a military simulator due to movement alone. I spent 8 years in the military and in no way does the movement make the game any more or less realistic.  Fact is,  they'd need to add hundreds of other systems to give a realistic feel.  Hydration levels,  body pain,  having to find time to eat an mre, having to sit in a compound a few hundred yards away from the enemy for hours doing surveillance,  or waiting for orders, spending anywhere from 24 to 48 hours on a plane just to connect to a server.  Any of that sound like fun? It isn't.  This is a video game, not real life. If you want a realistic experience then go enlist, but don't think for a ****ing second that someone is wanting to swim in a kiddie pool due to wanting to improve an aspect of the game which makes it unfun for the majority.

 

Outside of buddy rally, the game is played nearly the same except now squad leaders need to make faster decisions in order to keep up with the faster movement.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing considering in the past I've had to leave servers because the GAME wasn't fun due to spending the majority of a round doing basically nothing but walking around while squad leaders spent 80% of the round just sloppily coordinating what we should do next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thr34t said:

Using the argument "just because the majority want it doesn't mean it is the best" or "squad is turning into a kiddie pool" are childish as **** comments. 

 

I'll dumb it down to the level of the argument.

 

I think, read in context, you'll find that my point was not "childish as ****". It was part of a conversation; something that seems increasingly hard for people to understand in such polarised times of strange hostility. Your post was weirdly, needlessly angry and aggressive, which, given that you clearly consider yourself a fine exponent of maturity compared to the petty babies around you, strikes me as rather ironic.

 

I was simply stating that in general terms, populism does not always get the best results for either individuals or the collective. It's not whining; it's a recognition of the generally understood fact that just because a lot of people like something, it's not a guarantee of quality or positive creativity. In a nation of 49 hens and 51 foxes, the popular vote is hardly likely to have a resonable outcome. Venga Bus might have outsold any single Tim Buckley ever released, but it wouldn't be considered better because of that - only a reflection of the fact that lowest common denominator appeal tends to deal in the most generic and lower brow material. It is simply true to say that a lot of people preferring something doesn't make it better. McDonalds may be the food of choice for countless thousands, but most people who consider themselves to be more informed would not say it was 'better' for that. Please keep your vitroil to yourself.

 

Also to use your own example - you assume both balls are of equal value (value of course could be a number of things here, but still), which is an over-simplification in this context. You also have to add other concepts to it such as - what if there are already many places where red balls can be played with, but increasingly few blue balls? What if this area was once designated a blue ball area, to cater for the minority who preferred blue balls, but has been gradually pushed aside for red-ball players who already have a wealth of opportuity? I'm not saying that's the case here - I'd say the ball is still mostly blue, but the red tinge has got stronger, that's all... but if you want to extend your metaphor to something more valid and applicable, please take wider things into account.

Edited by TheRed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milsims are nothing about realism. Its about creating an illusion of realism. If this was real only 3 in each squad would be fighting, the rest are supporting those who fight. Noone want a game where a shot in the leg means that 4 other guys must carry you to the waiting ambulance and evacuate you back to the hospital where you spend the rest of the game. A milsim must be realistic enough to create the illusion of realism but still unrealistic enough to be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thr34t said:

Arma 3 doesn't have that shit lol, you need to stretch the shit out of the truth to make a point? Show me examples of arma with "Hydration levels,  body pain,  having to find time to eat an mre, having to sit in a compound a few hundred yards away from the enemy for hours doing surveillance,  or waiting for orders, spending anywhere from 24 to 48 hours on a plane just to connect to a server." None of it exists. 

Did you play Arma 3? Check:

- body pain is in arma 3 since day 1
- hydration levels,  having to find time to eat an mre - check wasteland servers
- having to sit in a compound a few hundred yards away from the enemy for hours doing surveillance,  or waiting for orders, spending anywhere from 24 to 48 hours on a plane just to connect to a server - did you play one life events, that are 2-3 every week?

 

2 hours ago, Thr34t said:

Squad is far from run and gun.

No, it is like CS now but with bigger maps and respawns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ruplay said:

Did you play Arma 3? Check:

- body pain is in arma 3 since day 1
- hydration levels,  having to find time to eat an mre - check wasteland servers
- having to sit in a compound a few hundred yards away from the enemy for hours doing surveillance,  or waiting for orders, spending anywhere from 24 to 48 hours on a plane just to connect to a server - did you play one life events, that are 2-3 every week?

 

No, it is like CS now but with bigger maps and respawns.

Yup, played arma 3 since day 1 also. Rofl @ comparing a vanilla version with modded servers. All of that could come to squad too with mods. The developers are making the core game,  not the mods. You can't compare a modded version of a game with the vanilla version.

 

This is nothing like cs. Literally no comparison on movement, how weapons work, or how rounds go. That would be like saying dark souls is like super mario brothers because there are bosses. Game itself 100% different.

Edited by Thr34t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Thr34t said:

Yup, played arma 3 since day 1 also. Rofl @ comparing a vanilla version with modded servers. All of that could come to squad too with mods. The developers are making the core game,  not the mods. You can't compare a modded version of a game with the vanilla version.

 

This is nothing like cs. Literally no comparison on movement, how weapons work, or how rounds go. That would be like saying dark souls is like super mario brothers because there are bosses. Game itself 100% different.

Sure, that is why all servers that were named are vanilla servers.

42 minutes ago, Thr34t said:

This is nothing like cs. Literally no comparison on movement, how weapons work, or how rounds go. That would be like saying dark souls is like super mario brothers because there are bosses. Game itself 100% different.

Like in CS in Squad v13 there is no need in tactics, like in CS - run and gun. Who have better aim, wins. There are no hard to play ballistics or smth else, just small bullet drop and that is it. Meatgrinder.

 

Edited by Ruplay

Share this post


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

Sure, that is why all servers that were named are vanilla servers.

Like in CS in Squad v13 there is no need in tactics, like in CS - run and gun. Who have better aim, wins. There are no hard to play ballistics or smth else, just small bullet drop and that is it. Meatgrinder.

 

You've never played vanilla arma if you think that is vanilla,  and you are straight up lying about the servers being titled vanilla.  Everything you are describing in arma is a mod... but that is the main point of arma, to be modded. And v13 didn't change ballistics, so completely stupid to use that as an argument.

 

I'm done with you because you clearly don't know what you are talking about and are 100% reliant on pulling shit out of your ass in order to make a point seem valid. 

 

I'm sorry the run speed change made the game too hard for you since you have inferior FPS abilities.  I'm not having any of these issues, and like the MAJORITY, am having loads of fun now that the walking simulator aspect of the game has been tuned down.

Edited by Thr34t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'll ignore the cockfight unfolding right above this post, there is a sad little kernel of truth to be found here - you'd be hard pressed to find a better descriptor for Squad in its current state than "run 'n gun".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez guys, I don't understand what's wrong with the devs trying new things and taking steps to make the game more appealing to a wider audience by increasing the pacing. My teenage sons and a bunch of their friends own Squad plus I gifted it to several of my old friends from the Delta Force community and all of them decline to play when I ask or invite them. When I ask why they always say things like "too slow", "low action", "boring", "long respawn times" "too much walking" etc.

 

Will it make you happy to slow the game down again and watch the daily peaks drop back down to 1500?

 

 

Share this post


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

Will it make you happy to slow the game down again and watch the daily peaks drop back down to 1500?

The right question: Will it make you happy to play without SL and coordination but with more players online?

Share this post


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

Will it make you happy to slow the game down again and watch the daily peaks drop back down to 1500?

1500 stable players to keep the game alive for several years is a much better outcome than 4000-5000 until maybe a year from now some better, newer, shinier game comes along and all of the players leave. The problem with casual gamers is they are not unlike locusts (or imagine Cravers from Endless Space :)) - they consume and they move on, and unless you're churning out games every other year or so you simply won't be able to keep them from looking for something juicier. Just look at the average life-span of most games nowadays - one year, maybe up to two if you've created something truly exceptional, and after that you'll pretty much never hear of it again. Anyone who has ever waited for a major update here knows - OWI tend to keep a rather leisurely pace, so keeping the game alive simply by providing more content is out of the question.

 

I'm afraid it has already gone too far by this point. The only hope for Squad now is to keep dumbing down, making the action faster and less tactical in a desperate grab for a piece of the arcade gamer market to replace the disappointed leaving players by new ones, but the game will inevitably lose itself in the process. With casuals you will see less and less people willing to play as squad leaders - and as they are the true backbone of the entire Squad experience, squad leaders make or break each and every round. Once we reach a critically low number of competent squad leaders Squad will simply dissolve into a bedlam of free kit squads in games devoid of any organization, thus losing the only true edge it had over its competitors - the distinction of being a tactical shooter instead of just another shooter.

 

I'm dead serious about the "only true edge" part by the way. There are tons of games that do shooting and non-stop action better than Squad, there are enough games that offer a much more comprehensive combined arms experience, graphics are not even worth mentioning here, let's be honest, sound is exceptional, but not enough on its own. The major selling point of Squad is (was?) the tactical aspect, and the fact that you can get some decent teamwork going even with a team of randoms. Once that is lost, well... it's been fun while it lasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there are three camps in Squad's playerbase. Like 5-10% who want it to be more tactical, slower paced, and more punishing but rewarding (like me).

Another 5-10% who want the game to go into the other direction.

And then the 80-90% who doesn't care much about either and will accept anything that rolls out in the updates..

I'd say the 10-20% who do care are just as, if not more important to listen to than the random 80-90%. Why? Well, that majority will simply leave Squad anyways after a certain amount of time, while the actual core player base will stay around for a long time, you can keep Squad alive longer by actually listening to those who post on the forums i think. People who are actually invested into the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

I think that there are three camps in Squad's playerbase. Like 5-10% who want it to be more tactical, slower paced, and more punishing but rewarding (like me).

Another 5-10% who want the game to go into the other direction.

And then the 80-90% who doesn't care much about either and will accept anything that rolls out in the updates..

I'd say the 10-20% who do care are just as, if not more important to listen to than the random 80-90%. Why? Well, that majority will simply leave Squad anyways after a certain amount of time, while the actual core player base will stay around for a long time, you can keep Squad alive longer by actually listening to those who post on the forums i think. People who are actually invested into the game.

So, since people are in the game and enjoying themselves they don't get a say?  More often than not people post on forums to complain rather than praise. This is why seeing any praise is a pretty good sign. Meanwhile, all the mad people are posting rather than just enjoying the game. 

 

This is why they did a survey.  They said the survey revealed that the majority liked the changes. People would have just not done the survey if they didnt care, or they would have chosen the option for not caring.

 

 

It is called a loud MINORITY for a reason. 

Edited by Thr34t

Share this post


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

1500 stable players to keep the game alive for several years is a much better outcome than 4000-5000 until maybe a year from now some better, newer, shinier game comes along and all of the players leave. The problem with casual gamers is they are not unlike locusts (or imagine Cravers from Endless Space :)) - they consume and they move on, and unless you're churning out games every other year or so you simply won't be able to keep them from looking for something juicier. Just look at the average life-span of most games nowadays - one year, maybe up to two if you've created something truly exceptional, and after that you'll pretty much never hear of it again. Anyone who has ever waited for a major update here knows - OWI tend to keep a rather leisurely pace, so keeping the game alive simply by providing more content is out of the question.

 

I'm afraid it has already gone too far by this point. The only hope for Squad now is to keep dumbing down, making the action faster and less tactical in a desperate grab for a piece of the arcade gamer market to replace the disappointed leaving players by new ones, but the game will inevitably lose itself in the process. With casuals you will see less and less people willing to play as squad leaders - and as they are the true backbone of the entire Squad experience, squad leaders make or break each and every round. Once we reach a critically low number of competent squad leaders Squad will simply dissolve into a bedlam of free kit squads in games devoid of any organization, thus losing the only true edge it had over its competitors - the distinction of being a tactical shooter instead of just another shooter.

 

I'm dead serious about the "only true edge" part by the way. There are tons of games that do shooting and non-stop action better than Squad, there are enough games that offer a much more comprehensive combined arms experience, graphics are not even worth mentioning here, let's be honest, sound is exceptional, but not enough on its own. The major selling point of Squad is (was?) the tactical aspect, and the fact that you can get some decent teamwork going even with a team of randoms. Once that is lost, well... it's been fun while it lasted.

I respect your opinion but despite the faults you listed Squad still has several redeeming features like huge maps, squads and logistics that were blended together from several previous games that completely and totally differentiate it from anything that's currently available. Evolving the game to make it appealing to a wider audience and grow the community seems like a positive thing to me.  

 

As far as your comment "tons of games that do shooting and non-stop action better than Squad" goes I would totally disagree with that. The all around gun handling such as recoil, animations, sway, reloading, ads, ttk and any other attribute related to gunplay are second to none, I don't care what anybody says and they just keep getting better and better imho.

Share this post


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

I respect your opinion but despite the faults you listed Squad still has several redeeming features like huge maps, squads and logistics that were blended together from several previous games that completely and totally differentiate it from anything that's currently available. Evolving the game to make it appealing to a wider audience and grow the community seems like a positive thing to me. 

It's just weird how the current spawn system seems to be trying to make big maps feel as small as possible.  Like Squad is embarrassed to make people see most of that carefully designed landscape.  The way to play is to magically teleport right into the front lines and grind against the contested point until something gives.  It's like opposing FOBs in Storage Site all over the place. Remember when we made FOBs easier to overrun because everyone spawning from the same place into a hellish meatgrinder was boring? What happened to that line of design?

 

And the logistics system plus the grueling map size doesn't really mesh well with the new shift in pace.  Really, who wants to be the chump who has to do ten-minute logi runs across Yehorivka when the rest of the squad is repeatedly running headfirst through enemy gunfire?

They're good elements, the blend is just so severely off right now it's hard to see the reason to put up with them.

Edited by Skidborg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Skidborg said:

It's just weird how the current spawn system seems to be trying to make big maps feel as small as possible.  Like Squad is embarrassed to make people see most of that carefully designed landscape.  The way to play is to magically teleport right into the front lines and grind against the contested point until something gives.  It's like opposing FOBs in Storage Site all over the place. Remember when we made FOBs easier to overrun because everyone spawning from the same place into a hellish meatgrinder was boring? What happened to that line of design?

 

And the logistics system plus the grueling map size doesn't really mesh well with the new shift in pace.  Really, who wants to be the chump who has to do ten-minute logi runs across Yehorivka when the rest of the squad is repeatedly running headfirst through enemy gunfire?

They're good elements, the blend is just so severely off right now it's hard to see the reason to put up with them.

 

Recently I've been playing Squad less frequently than with previous versions (thanks to Mordhau and Obra Dinn) but the few matches I've had have felt better than I was getting with V12 without the new rally mechanic.

 

While it does look abusable on paper I've found the new rally system is just creating stronger frontlines which is great. You still have the option to spawn at at a FOB or main then push out as your own squad if needed but having the option to reinforce a foothold has made the game feel more like an actual battle to me, but again I haven't played a tonne of matches yet.

 

While there's definitely room to improve the buddy rally system (mainly in terms of how abstract the rules are to understand) I think it's having a positive impact on the game's pacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the thread on topic please, no more insults & flaming. If someone has a differing opinion or is saying something you dislike, and you both won't see eye to eye on it, just ignore it. If the post is breaking forum rules, report it - Instead of carrying on the flame war.

I have cleaned the thread up a little.

Share this post


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

It's just weird how the current spawn system seems to be trying to make big maps feel as small as possible.  Like Squad is embarrassed to make people see most of that carefully designed landscape.  The way to play is to magically teleport right into the front lines and grind against the contested point until something gives.  It's like opposing FOBs in Storage Site all over the place.

I like the way you lay those arguments.

 

I like this line in particular...

5 hours ago, Skidborg said:

Remember when we made FOBs easier to overrun because everyone spawning from the same place into a hellish meatgrinder was boring? What happened to that line of design?

 

12 hours ago, MultiSquid said:

1500 stable players to keep the game alive for several years is a much better outcome than 4000-5000 until maybe a year from now some better, newer, shinier game comes along and all of the players leave. The problem with casual gamers is they are not unlike locusts (or imagine Cravers from Endless Space :)) - they consume and they move on.

+1

 

9 hours ago, Guan_Yu007 said:

I think that there are three camps in Squad's playerbase. Like 5-10% who want it to be more tactical, slower paced, and more punishing but rewarding (like me).

Another 5-10% who want the game to go into the other direction.

And then the 80-90% who doesn't care much about either and will accept anything that rolls out in the updates..

I'd say the 10-20% who do care are just as, if not more important to listen to than the random 80-90%. Why? Well, that majority will simply leave Squad anyways after a certain amount of time, while the actual core player base will stay around for a long time, you can keep Squad alive longer by actually listening to those who post on the forums i think. People who are actually invested into the game.

+1

 

14 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Jeez guys, I don't understand what's wrong with the devs trying new things and taking steps to make the game more appealing to a wider audience by increasing the pacing. My teenage sons and a bunch of their friends own Squad plus I gifted it to several of my old friends from the Delta Force community and all of them decline to play when I ask or invite them. When I ask why they always say things like "too slow", "low action", "boring", "long respawn times" "too much walking" etc.

I agree with your general idea that people who are against some of the new mechanics shouldn´t exaggerate and go over the top to say that the game is broken now. Or that this is COD. Because it isn´t. But some people fear not what the game is now, but the sudden direction it has taken and are already thinking 3 or 4 updates ahead.

 

I guess you know that some people have suggested autobuilding stuff. 

Some suggested fireteam leaders dropping rallies.

 

Whether you like these ideas or not, in some people´s fear this could the form the game will take if we keep down a certain road. 

 

In my opinion, I loved every single update squad had, I loved to see it was going were I wanted to. And then...V13. Of course it´s not broken or COD like, but it´s at best a halt in the slow pace tactical direction it was going. It has changed gameplay, and tactis. I feel it is very obvious every time I play. 

 

14 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Will it make you happy to slow the game down again and watch the daily peaks drop back down to 1500?

Well. YES. 

 

On one hand, you know that the high peaks the game has right now are related to the usual hype of a new update being released, and the number is going to go down in  3/4 weeks as the precedents teaches us.

So all those people who are happy playing now and may or may not have done the survey will likely be playing much less frequently in 1 month. And most of us will still be here.

 

On the other hand it doesn´t have to be like that. Future implementations in the game like choppers can make the maps "smaller" so you get to the frontlines quicker, for example. 

 

And finally YES. Because I don´t see many problems with a steady loyal and happy community of 1500 people. I´ve NEVER had a problem finding a populated server with decent Sls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commercial aspect dictates,  quite reasonably, that overall sales probably had more weight than longevity. it's people's livelihoods on the line this time above catering for a PR vibe, even if that's still a general idea,  and really, that's fair enough, even if I'd be more than happy with 1500 committed players of a slower tactical game! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Server options is the only way to satisfy everyone. If i could choose between regular servers with no permadeath, and buddy rally, and more hardcore servers without buddy rally, with permadeath, and maybe have nametags show up only  untill 20 metres away. Then i'd just stick to the hardcore servers, while casuals can stick to the regular servers.

Edited by Guan_Yu007

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

×