Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 6/17/2019 at 5:05 PM, Nightingale87 said:

Speak for yourself. 

 

If I follow your logic, then you feel more spacial than COD/BF players becuse you play SQUAD. Oh!...you´re so badass! Cmon! really? DO YOU FEEL SPECIAL BECAUSE YOU PLAY SQUAD?

 

If you do...the fact that you feel special because you play a game with "harder" settings doesn´t mean that´s the reason most people want to be able to play with those settings. 

 

BElive it or not, there´s something more than EGO in playing videogames.

 

Being "realistic" and being "real" are two different things. Otherwise we wouldn´t have two words for that now would we? 

It´s a matter of degree, not a binary question.

 

A game with no magazine representation and bullet count is less "realistic" than a game with bullent count.

A game with enemies shown on the map is less "realistic" than a game with less info on the map.

A game without a stamina system is less "realistic" than a game with a stamina bar.

 

See? Levels of realism...

 

A game in which you sneeze because of all the dust around you and are unable to shoot at the enemy is more "realistic" than a game in which you don´t sneeze. 

 

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT PEOPLE ADVOCATING FOR A "HARDCORE" MODE WANT PLAYERS TO BE SNEEZING AROUND?????

 

Think about it...

1) You've just proven my point, that people don't really want an actual hardcore mode(cause it would not be fun and they might as well enlist), but something that they are comfortable with calling "hardcore". 

 

2) FYI, I don't "feel more special" playing Squad than those playing COD/BF. Squad is a better choice for me because it emphasizes less on twitch reflex and more on positioning and teamwork(on a clan server maybe), thus being more challenging.

 

3) You need to distinguish between playing a "hardcore" game and advocating for a "hardcore" mode. To be specific, the only function of the vaguely defined term "hardcore" is there to make people feel good. Like how you lable some food as "green" or "natural".

Edited by Noobgamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Noobgamer said:

1) You've just proven my point, that people don't really want an actual hardcore mode(cause it would not be fun and they might as well enlist), but something that they are comfortable with calling "hardcore".

 

You're right, the actual Vanilla game should be more hardcore.

40 minutes ago, Noobgamer said:

2) FYI, I don't "feel more special" playing Squad than those playing COD/BF. Squad is a better choice for me because it emphasizes less on twitch reflex and more on positioning and teamwork(on a clan server maybe), thus being more challenging.

1

Sorry but that's not true at all. Good aim and twitch reflex are way more important than good positioning for teamwork it goes 50:50.

That happens on all servers across the board (Pubs/Clan/Tournament).

 

Share this post


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

1) You've just proven my point, that people don't really want an actual hardcore mode(cause it would not be fun and they might as well enlist), but something that they are comfortable with calling "hardcore". 

 

2) FYI, I don't "feel more special" playing Squad than those playing COD/BF. Squad is a better choice for me because it emphasizes less on twitch reflex and more on positioning and teamwork(on a clan server maybe), thus being more challenging.

 

3) You need to distinguish between playing a "hardcore" game and advocating for a "hardcore" mode. To be specific, the only function of the vaguely defined term "hardcore" is there to make people feel good. Like how you lable some food as "green" or "natural".

I´m sorry. You just don´t get it. 

 

I´ll try to explain once more.

 

There is no "ACTUAL HARDCORE MODE". Seems like you believe there is something called "actual hardcore" and it is just not posible. To all the things you think of (some of which u mentioned) when you say hardcore, you have to add the possibility of death. That is a mechanic that changes all the other mechanics. And that is imposible to reproduce. Now, given the fact that we cannot reproduce all the things that occur in real life, we have to realice that perfect identification of a videogame with reality is not posible.  

 

From there onwards, it´s all about degrees of realism. There is no "ACTUAL HARDCORE MODE", "hardcore" mode people are talking about is just a higher lvl of realism. That can be done by just removing gametags. Only that. There. You have another mode and you can call it "hardcore". Why? well because from the lvl of realism represented by the game, one of them would be LESS "hardcore" and the other one would be MORE "hardcore". 

 

If your point was that of nomenclature, then I would understand. "hardcore" can or can not be a suitable name. But that is only a detail.

 

I´ll try with an example. 

 

Take Warthunder for instance. It has 3 modes - ARCADE - REALISTIC - SIMULATION.

 

They are all within a videogame, and non of them tries to simulate reality to all it´s extent (we´ve already mentioned that it can´t be completely simulated by a videogame). But one of them is more arcade, the other one includes and removes certain mechanics to make it some DEGREES more realistic. And the last one removes/includes some other mechanics to make it some DEGREES of realism higher/further, and it´s called SIMULATION.

 

Can the simulation mode be more of a simulation?. Well yes, of course, just by having to change gears manually to move the tank would make it even more "HARDCORE". Is that reason enough to say that the names are wrong?. Well, only if you haven´t understood basic principles of language and videogames and you want to spend your time doing that. 

 

If it pleases you. You can contact the war thunder guys and tell them that since their realistic and simulation mode aren´t realistic nor close enough to a simulation, they should rename the modes of their game as GAME MODE 1, GAME MODE 2, and GAME MODE 3. 

 

So, Bottom line. No one wants a "hardcore" mode, if the only definition you understand by "hardcore" is very limited to something that basically doesn´t and can´t exist in a videogame. 

Edited by Nightingale87

Share this post


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

You're right, the actual Vanilla game should be more hardcore.

Sorry but that's not true at all. Good aim and twitch reflex are way more important than good positioning for teamwork it goes 50:50.

That happens on all servers across the board (Pubs/Clan/Tournament).

 

If that's how you perceive the game, than perhaps you are not truly understanding the overall gameplay. Sure for cramped maps like Sumari, quick reflex is cruical. But for most maps, it's all about getting intel on enemy movement. An optic machinegunner in a right spot can decimate an entire team all by himself, or even determine the outcome of an entire capture zone.

 

That being said, I felt that 99% of the players, including the majority of clan members, don't really understand how best to exploit terrain. For instance, most of the time you would see optic machinegunners side-by-side to other rifle-using players, in which case either of them was doing it wrong(when you were on an open terrain map and out-killed all the optic-machinegunners while using iron-sight guns, you know they screwed up). 

Edited by Noobgamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmfao! We're using sports games, sneezing and now Warthunder as metaphors and analogies about the development of the Squad. In all reality it probably makes just as much sense to use George Costanza in his opposites episode to illustrate why over a million people have bought Squad and now a little over a week after an incredibly cool patch was released and daily peaks are less than 3000 and rapidly declining.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think this whole discussion on naming conventions is sidestepping the point of this thread, so let's make it a bit clearer. We are looking for a game mode that reduces the importance of reflexes and twitch skills, in favor of emphasized importance for logistics, teamwork, valuing your tickets (assets and virtual lives), positioning, intel and the ability to adapt a bigger amount of real world tactics to the game than is currently possible.

 

This is quite a mouthful, so people might call it "hardcore". You could call it Squad: Project Reality mod, or whatever else that emphasizes the higher difficulty level and it would be ok. What you call it is not that important as long as it conveys the increased difficulty, what the mode or mod will include is what's important.

 

EDIT: I'm not 100% against the increased movement speed, but a reddit thread i was just reading summarizes the current situation perfectly:

" In all of squads game modes, life is cheap and speed is king. "

 

The main post is mostly about the speed changes, but the comments bring up a lot of good points. Have a look:

 

Edited by Burningbeard80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burningbeard80 said:

I think this whole discussion on naming conventions is sidestepping the point of this thread, so let's make it a bit clearer.

+1

 

Yes. there are some who are not being very productive in this conversation, some becaus ethey don´t understand some arguments or they are just off topic.

 

2 hours ago, Burningbeard80 said:

We are looking for a game mode that reduces the importance of reflexes and twitch skills, in favor of emphasized importance for logistics, teamwork, valuing your tickets (assets and virtual lives), positioning, intel and the ability to adapt a bigger amount of real world tactics to the game than is currently posible.

Now to clarify something (tell me if we are o the same page).

 

Reducing the importance of reflexes and twitch kills means only MAKING IT LESS IMPORTANT IN PROPORTION. Increasing the importance of some other aspects a "tactical" shooter should have without affecting directly the ability players have of one tapping somebody purely based on reflexes.

 

Now there´s a huge difference. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, you should still  be able to one-tap a guy if you got the superior personal skills. But that kill should mean nothing by itself to the outcome of the round. E,g if you're in a useless position (all alone on a hill just outside enemy main, sniping guys as they come out of the "protected" zone), it shouldn't matter: the enemy would just respawn and lose a few tickets every few minutes, meanwhile your team would lose tons of tickets because of losing flags and you not relaying info on enemy movements. If you are a god of marksmanship or the guy who is a CQB expert and you are actively helping your squad defend, attack and flank, then by all means your superior skills should have a bearing on the success of the mission, which would in turn help your squad and your team win the round.

 

Which basically is what i think we're mostly asking for, the ability to break down the round in small missions with some variety for our squads, in order to win the round. Currently, the only mission that makes sense is "stack as many people on cap as possible", because it's much harder to die and even if you do, it's much easier to get back in position at a moment's notice.

 

If anything, a "hardcore" mode should be even more satisfying for people with good twitch skills, because their kills would have more impact. If you kill me now, your kill is pretty much worthless since i'll be back in seconds (how many seconds depends on whether there is a buddy rally close by or i have to wait for a revive). Yup, that's right, K/D ratios are even more worthless under the current mechanics than under PR-style mechanics, because the consequences for dying as so "meh" now.

 

But if you kill me under the game mechanics i advocate, i won't be back in the combat zone shooting back at you for at least a minute or two. Like i said in another thread, the reason we have the current problematic situation is because the importance of downtime during a round has been overlooked, lethality is low (no instadeath, low HE effects such as mortars landing pretty close to you and you can shrug it off and keep on running) and if you finally manage to die, the consequences for dying have been nerfed (you can be back in action in no time flat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddy rally, removal of insta-death, increased sprint speed.. all have been cited as ways to increase squad cohesion by keeping squadmates together. 

 

As others have mentioned, these changes make a squad increasingly difficult to wipe off an objective. This has prolonged engagements into hour-long fragfests.

 

Personally, I can't see a solution that keeps a squad together all game while not artificially increasing its durability. However, I don't think keeping the squad alive and together ought to be a developer goal. That's a player goal. Game design should provide options to achieve that goal, but they should make intuitive sense and not be so powerful as to negate the opposing team's countermeasures. 

 

Also players don't have to be alive (virtually) to enjoy the game. I would love to have the ability to spectate an alive squad member's player cam, but there seem to be problems implementing this in UE4. Spectate cams are a standby in the FPS genre for many reasons: decreasing boredom and frustration, providing learning opportunities from watching another play. If it could be implemented, I can see this as being a way to keep the squad invested in their mission even while dead/incapped.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pinko said:

Personally, I can't see a solution that keeps a squad together all game while not artificially increasing its durability. However, I don't think keeping the squad alive and together ought to be a developer goal. That's a player goal. Game design should provide options to achieve that goal, but they should make intuitive sense and not be so powerful as to negate the opposing team's countermeasures.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

I'm hopeful the addition of helicopters will somewhat fix this. The way it worked in PR was spawn main, pick your transport (or request another squad to move you, e.g APC or chopper), set up a FOB if another squad wasn't already doing it and make your way to the objective (not necessarily a capture point, the objective could be anything useful to the team, eg an ambush on the main road to take out enemy armor). Before the assault or once casualties started piling up and they were no longer revivable, the SL would move to cover with 2 more guys and place a rally point so people could respawn. If that was not possible, the remaining squad members would fight until incapacitation and then give up. Now everyone is dead and they can all respawn together, either at the pre-made FOB or back at main and get another chopper to the front lines.

 

This maintained squad cohesion pretty well, because the majority of a squad's members were alive or dead simultaneously and everyone was on more or less the same spawn state. You could still lose cohesion if the SLs wanted to push very aggressively or they decided to change their plans. E.g, you lose half the squad and SL on the initial push, the wounded give up and respawn immediately at FOB/main and go in from another route or to a totally different objective, leaving the squad split in two at different locations. This was no a problem however in the grand scheme of gameplay. If you didn't plan it well you just got punished for bad tactics like you should (so the enemy could be rewarded for their good tactics), but if you played it well you could get your guys to move somewhere that a chopper could extract them and bring them back to you.

 

So, when we get helicopters we could possibly remove the buddy rally completely and maybe even adjust the normal rally in some manner. Building and supplying FOBs will be less of a hassle when supplies can be dropped from the sky, so i expect more people will take the time to do it. This makes the FOB/HAB the main spawn point in the field. If there is no nearby FOB available, choppers can still give you a lift to where you want to go (within reason, no experienced pilot will agree to hot-drop you right onto a contested objective, because you'll all die and the team will be minus a chopper for some minutes). In fact, spawning main and taking a chopper or fresh logi is a pretty solid choice if a change of plan is needed, instead of continuously throwing bodies onto a cap.

 

TL;DR with helicopters we will have a way to redeploy quickly as a group when needed, maintaining better squad cohesion, so we won't need buddy rallies.

Well, at least once a sufficient amount of people learn how to fly them, because make no mistake guys, we're in for a hilarious couple of months until players get to grips with them xD.

Share this post


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

Buddy rally, removal of insta-death, increased sprint speed.. all have been cited as ways to increase squad cohesion by keeping squadmates together. 

 

As others have mentioned, these changes make a squad increasingly difficult to wipe off an objective. This has prolonged engagements into hour-long fragfests.

 

Personally, I can't see a solution that keeps a squad together all game while not artificially increasing its durability. However, I don't think keeping the squad alive and together ought to be a developer goal. That's a player goal. Game design should provide options to achieve that goal, but they should make intuitive sense and not be so powerful as to negate the opposing team's countermeasures. 

 

Also players don't have to be alive (virtually) to enjoy the game. I would love to have the ability to spectate an alive squad member's player cam, but there seem to be problems implementing this in UE4. Spectate cams are a standby in the FPS genre for many reasons: decreasing boredom and frustration, providing learning opportunities from watching another play. If it could be implemented, I can see this as being a way to keep the squad invested in their mission even while dead/incapped.

The source of all squad durability is really just respawns. It's separate from cohesion, once the SL has placed FOB / Rally the role becomes very hands-off. SLing in Squad is all about leveraging respawn points to do the heavy lifting for you. In PR, the SL was the only good spawn point, beyond that you had to rely on tactics and coordination to overpower the enemy.
 

PR didn't do Squad cohesion naturally, it was one of the major concessions to gameplay. There isn't a natural incentive for Squad cohesion. Your squad was together because of the SL spawn (rally). This was always a major difference between Arma and PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Good-Try Greg said:

The source of all squad durability is really just respawns. It's separate from cohesion, once the SL has placed FOB / Rally the role becomes very hands-off. SLing in Squad is all about leveraging respawn points to do the heavy lifting for you. In PR, the SL was the only good spawn point, beyond that you had to rely on tactics and coordination to overpower the enemy.
 

I agree. It's not long before you learn it's both easier and more effective to just let your soldiers respawn and keep up the pressure. 

That's really not how I'd like to play the game, but that's how it is. I mean, I'll do cheeky stuff to counter the opponent's HAB and buddy rally nest if I get the chance, but the squad is generally just in an all-out firefight.

Quote

PR didn't do Squad cohesion naturally, it was one of the major concessions to gameplay. There isn't a natural incentive for Squad cohesion. Your squad was together because of the SL spawn (rally). This was always a major difference between Arma and PR.

This is why I think the game design should focus on the use of vehicles instead of rallies. Get people coordinating rides, organizing pickup, scouting a route. It happens far too infrequently with current game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my suggestion for keeping squads together.

 

On 1/24/2019 at 1:57 PM, suds said:

I'd like friendlies/squadmates near a spawn point to reduce respawn time. This will help bring squads closer together. 

 

eg

  • A spawn wave spawns 2 guys at the rally. 
  • 6 other guys die soon after the wave. They would normally have 60 seconds wait.
  • Because the first 2 guys are there the wave timer is reduced to a max of 40 seconds.
  • 2 guys stay at the rally to keep the timer down, if they left it would jump up 10 seconds for each player.
  • These 6 other guys spawn making the total within range of the rally 8 players. 
  • Last guy dies and instead of waiting for the spawn timer he is allowed the minimum spawn time, eg 30 seconds.

 

Of course all the numbers can be adapted. The standard rally spawn timer could be increased a lot. eg 120 seconds. By working as a team the squad can reduce the spawn time by sticking near their rally. Then they move off as a wave. The maximum time reduction could be achieved by a low number of players eg 3. Range to reduce should be sensibly high, standing in a 15m radius of your teammates is usually stupid. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/14/2019 at 7:45 AM, MultiSquid said:

As for the thread itself, I'm surprised that there haven't been news of any hardcore mod getting made by now, either there are some sneaky modders or it really isn't in such high demand, I'm hoping for the former. 

Maybe the former, maybe the latter, maybe modders are waiting for Modding 2.0 and updated SDK, maybe it will take some more time. I agree with you guys, don't loose hope and faith.

Edited by El Pube

Share this post


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

This is my suggestion for keeping squads together.

 

 

Like somebody said. Your suggestion is speeding up the game instead of slowing it down.

 

Lets put it like this. You are trying to keep the squad together. And for end, you suggest different things.

 

Some of us, instead of seeing the squad being together as an end, we are seeing it as a mean. 

 

We want to implement some other mechanics (lack of rallies, insta death, etc) as some unforgiving environment that would make people want to stay around their squad. Therefore we see the squad being together as a side effect that those mechanics would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nightingale87 said:

We want to implement some other mechanics (lack of rallies, insta death, etc) as some unforgiving environment that would make people want to stay around their squad. Therefore we see the squad being together as a side effect that those mechanics would have.

1

That's a pretty accurate description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-06-21 at 9:16 AM, El Pube said:

Maybe the former, maybe the latter, maybe modders are waiting for Modding 2.0 and updated SDK, maybe it will take some more time. I agree with you guys, don't loose hope and faith.

Also, it doesn't make sense to put much time into heavy modding while the game is still in alpha. Game updates can require constant updates to the mod, which is a daunting prospect for those modding as a hobby.

 

15 hours ago, Nightingale87 said:

We want to implement some other mechanics (lack of rallies, insta death, etc) as some unforgiving environment that would make people want to stay around their squad. Therefore we see the squad being together as a side effect that those mechanics would have.

 Agreed. Ultimately the squad stays together by player choice. If developers/modders want to encourage squad cohesion, they should design around making playing with the squad the optimal choice. Rallies don't accomplish this, as they encourage constant fast gunplay and respawning in order to keep the pressure on and take territory. A more punishing respawn system might see a slowing down of engagements and a reliance on squadmates to keep one another alive. Death would simply be more punishing to the individual, the squad, and the team. The optimal player choice would be in keeping yourself and your squadmates alive, rather than throwing bodies at the objective.

Share this post


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

Also, it doesn't make sense to put much time into heavy modding while the game is still in alpha. Game updates can require constant updates to the mod, which is a daunting prospect for those modding as a hobby.

 

 Agreed. Ultimately the squad stays together by player choice. If developers/modders want to encourage squad cohesion, they should design around making playing with the squad the optimal choice. Rallies don't accomplish this, as they encourage constant fast gunplay and respawning in order to keep the pressure on and take territory. A more punishing respawn system might see a slowing down of engagements and a reliance on squadmates to keep one another alive. Death would simply be more punishing to the individual, the squad, and the team. The optimal player choice would be in keeping yourself and your squadmates alive, rather than throwing bodies at the objective.

The elephant in the room here is the simple fact that nobody has even identified the main reason why the game itself has seemingly diverged from it's original PR's "spiritual successor" concept. Or has it?

 

I mean what exactly do you think is the motivational factor behind evolving the game in such an opposite direction that you'd have to make a mod to "fix" it and bring it back into PR parameters?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zylfrax791 said:

The elephant in the room here is the simple fact that nobody has even identified the main reason why the game itself has seemingly diverged from it's original PR's "spiritual successor" concept. Or has it?

 

I mean what exactly do you think is the motivational factor behind evolving the game in such an opposite direction that you'd have to make a mod to "fix" it and bring it back into PR parameters?

 

 

I´d say sales. 

 

Nevertheless, whatever the cause is, the fact is that the direction it´s taking is different (NOT THE OPPOSITE), so, the fact that a new game mode is needed/desired by a part of the community still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nightingale87 said:

I´d say sales. 

 

Nevertheless, whatever the cause is, the fact is that the direction it´s taking is different (NOT THE OPPOSITE), so, the fact that a new game mode is needed/desired by a part of the community still stands.

Sales. That's all I was waiting for somebody to admit to. Certainly its a capitalist world though and OWI is free to guide their creations in way, shape or form they feel necessary in order to maximize profits above all other concerns. You can't fault them for that. Game developers have bills to pay and children to feed just like everyone else. That's the world we live in. Times change, people change and everything is constantly evolving though and I feel like they're correct to deviate away from creating a Project Reality clone despite anyone's objections including my own if it increases their profits.

 

Honestly in such a niche subgenre it would honestly make more sense to mod ARMA3 into a PR clone because its all setup for a full Combined Arms experience with flyable jets etc, and other stuff that won't ever make it into Squad due to the engine limitations. I mean think about the concept again for a second. You're wanting to make a mod of game that's supposed to fix a game that was created based on a mod of a different game. That's hard to wrap your brain around isn't it? You might as well start over from scratch as you'll be setting up your PC in the old folks home by the time you finish something that complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, supposing the game deviates enough from its original premise down the road, it won't be a niche game anymore and the entire argument is reversed: if Squad becomes a battlefield clone at some point, then it makes perfect sense to have a PR mod for it.

 

In such a scenario OWI can sell more copies to keep the business running and we can use mods to play PR on a modern engine like we originally wanted, everyone should be happy, mission accomplished. Well, at least for a short while.

 

See, the danger in all of this is that losing your niche is a double edged sword. On one hand, you can appeal to a wider audience, on the other you dilute your original selling point and competitive advantage ("my game is different than all those other games"). This puts you in direct competition with behemoths that have multi-million dollar budgets and can churn out the same game every 1-2 years with updated graphics. If the game tries to compete with that, will we be seeing half-baked releases of sequels every two years to maintain a competitive tempo? And how would such a thing affect the community and any established mods? That's a whole different can of worms and it would be shame to see OWI lose money by trying to cater to a larger audience, only to find themselves swimming in the same pool as the industry's biggest sharks and suffering as a result.

 

It's going to be interesting for sure. As for our discussions here, i think that OWI should not necessarily listen to us. But they should definitely make a survey limited to their original kickstarter backers and listen to them. After all, they are the ones who made everything possible in the first place.

Edited by Burningbeard80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Burningbeard80 said:

Well, supposing the game deviates enough from its original premise down the road, it won't be a niche game anymore and the entire argument is reversed: if Squad becomes a battlefield clone at some point, then it makes perfect sense to have a PR mod for it.

 

In such a scenario OWI can sell more copies to keep the business running and we can use mods to play PR on a modern engine like we originally wanted, everyone should be happy, mission accomplished. Well, at least for a short while.

 

See, the danger in all of this is that losing your niche is a double edged sword. On one hand, you can appeal to a wider audience, on the other you dilute your original selling point and competitive advantage ("my game is different than all those other games"). This puts you in direct competition with behemoths that have multi-million dollar budgets and can churn out the same game every 1-2 years with updated graphics. If the game tries to compete with that, will we be seeing half-baked releases of sequels every two years to maintain a competitive tempo? And how would such a thing affect the community and any established mods? That's a whole different can of worms and it would be shame to see OWI lose money by trying to cater to a larger audience, only to find themselves swimming in the same pool as the industry's biggest sharks and suffering as a result.

 

It's going to be interesting for sure. As for our discussions here, i think that OWI should not necessarily listen to us. But they should definitely make a survey limited to their original kickstarter backers and listen to them. After all, they are the ones who made everything possible in the first place.

You and everyone here else here has made some good points. That said, OWI has created a seriously unique game by combining several key attributes from several previous titles that none of the "behemoths" have thought of putting together so far. So unless one of those AAA studios figures it out it will continue to retain this consistent yet small community despite the private servers being the front end of the game.

 

As far as Steam purchasers vs. Kickstarter backers rated on importance I would agree with you as well that their opinions matter considerably more because they were sold more than a potential game but an actual concept or vision so to speak. In theory then they would seem to be owed the PR clone they were told they were financing. Nobody should have to create a mod to make Squad into Project Reality 2 would seem to be the general consensus. 

Share this post


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

Sales. That's all I was waiting for somebody to admit to. 

I think it´s the obvious answer. Read my full answer again.

 

5 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Sales. That's all I was waiting for somebody to admit to. Certainly its a capitalist world though and OWI is free to guide their creations in way, shape or form they feel necessary in order to maximize profits above all other concerns. You can't fault them for that. Game developers have bills to pay and children to feed just like everyone else. That's the world we live in. Times change, people change and everything is constantly evolving though and I feel like they're correct to deviate away from creating a Project Reality clone despite anyone's objections including my own if it increases their profits.

You seem to think that Having another game mode is somehow incompatible with the business. But you haben´t explained why?

This would be a new game mode, not the game itself. This whole thread makes the point that we (the people advocating for it) cannot compete with the capitalist world (as you put it) and have given up trying to change the Vanilla game. So adding a new game mode would make everyone happy.

Again, many games (for some reason you don´t understand the example with sports game or warthunder) develop both parts of the community TO THEIR ADVANTAGE and PROFIT.

Can you please explain wh you think this would make them lose money???

There´s already community supported ONE LIFE mods. PRETTY HARDCORE.... and that makes the devs lose money...how???????????????????

 

 

5 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Honestly in such a niche subgenre it would honestly make more sense to mod ARMA3 into a PR clone because its all setup for a full Combined Arms experience with flyable jets etc, and other stuff that won't ever make it into Squad due to the engine limitations. 

This was attemped a long time ago but was imposible due to engine problems (the technicallities escape me but you can read all about that in their fórums)

 

5 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

 I mean think about the concept again for a second. You're wanting to make a mod of game that's supposed to fix a game that was created based on a mod of a different game. That's hard to wrap your brain around isn't it? You might as well start over from scratch as you'll be setting up your PC in the old folks home by the time you finish something that complex.

It´s not really that hard. I don´t see why you find it difficult. 

 

Let´s put it this way. Although SQUAD was advertised as PR´s successor it is actually becoming BF successor.

 

So this hardcore mode would be to SQUAD what PR was to BF.

 

Just that now this company happens to have the knowledge and experience of how things developed 10+ years ago to date and can accomplish something that would make them if anything BIGGER BUSINESS. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 11:14 PM, Nightingale87 said:

Your suggestion is speeding up the game instead of slowing it down.

only if you ignore the variables built into my suggestion.

rally spawn time could be 4 hours, dropped by 1 hour for every squad member nearby. numbers are easy and flexible.

 

 

 

building in the tools that your mod will modify is the hard bit. removing or ignoring tools from the core will hurt any mod later on.

more tools = more flexibility.

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

×