Jump to content
=CDN= Wehmann

Solution to "Buddy Rally"

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Nossa said:

Taking HABS out of the picture might make the game too slow IMO. Only spawning from mainbase? We may as well play Arma 3 at that point. I play Squad because I don't have to sit in the back of a truck for 30 minutes to die in a firefight that lasts 30 seconds like arma 3 AAS. 

Like somebody has already pointed out that is exaggerated. Reducing arguments to absurd propositions creates false impressions. 

 

First of all, It wouldnt take you 30 minutes to get back into action and you know it.

 

Secondly, maybe if it takes you longer to get into action then you, and EVERYBODY ELSE, would value life in the game much more and firefights wouldnt last 30 seconds.

 

Finally, take into account that I´m not for eliminating HABs and Rallies completely, but I definetely plrefer that to what we have now (although it Will never happen, because that wouldnt sell. Masses want instant action and clicking pretending they play a "tactical" game)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nightingale87 said:

 

 

Finally, take into account that I´m not for eliminating HABs and Rallies completely, but I definetely plrefer that to what we have now (although it Will never happen, because that wouldnt sell. Masses want instant action and clicking pretending they play a "tactical" game)

In actuality there is supposed to be limited amount of FOB's allowed in a match but that baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

 

Kickstarter:

 

"and also a limited number of them can be placed around the map."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 9:45 AM, Thr34t said:

 

A vehicle doesn't need to be useable to be considered captured. When I was in the military we captured plenty of assets with zero intentions on using them. 

 

"If it is considered lost then the enemy can replace it"? That didn't even make sense.  

 

A vehicle being de-crewed or abandoned and not being able to have it again until recovered DOES make sense.  Your logic in this post is nonsense thinking. 

 

It is very arcady to use a vehicle stupidly,  have it captured, and then have the option to press a magic button which fixes it and transports it back safely to base. Allow your vehicle to be captured or abandon it and you pay the consequence of not having it until you recover it. Any other way is illogical. 

 

The only exception I can see is if you go to the vehicle and demolition it, or have it blown up by a air support, bu even then it should have a very long respawn penalty attached.  This only stipulation is because it IS realistic for an asset in enemy's control to be demolished if possible.  Normally this doesn't mean getting a new one for free, but I'd reward that type of gameplay instead of just pressing a button.

 

Not sure why you think its nonsense. I will present to you two scenarios and I am sure you will be able to understand why it doesn't make sense.

 

1. A Logi or some kind of vehicle is either abandoned, disabled or "captured". Whatever. 

Until it has been recaptured another one does not spawn.

 

2. The same logi instead of being abandoned, disabled or "captured" is destroyed. 

 

A new one magically spawns in main. 

 

From a realism perspective, it makes no sense why scenario 1, where a vehicle is lost cannot be replaced but scenario 2 it can be replaced. You were in the military you said and you captured assets. Did you ever say to yourself, lets not destroy that enemy vehicle because if we do they will be able to replace it whereas if we hold on to it, they won't be able to deploy a new one?

 

The only valid explanation for this mechanic is from a game-play perspective. Where teams who don't abandon vehicles are rewarded. However, I think it can be done better. Lets say the SLs can vote and if enough of them vote on a vehicle being "lost" then it gets removed from their vehicle pool (it can no longer be recovered) and a new one spawns the way it would if that vehicle were destroyed. However, the catch is that doing this costs twice as many tickets than simply having the vehicle destroyed. This would be a better mechanic than what we have currently. 

Edited by warrior6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back in JO we sometimes stole/kept-safe (usually to use against them but mostly for denial) the enemy vehicle as a new one would not spawn until the existing one was destroyed.

allowing vics the time to burn out and then goto re-spawn-timer, rather than outright destroy, also held the enemy up as well, just not for as long.

of course we could steal/comandeer vehicles in that game as well, so there's that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, warrior6 said:

 

Not sure why you think its nonsense. I will present to you two scenarios and I am sure you will be able to understand why it doesn't make sense.

 

1. A Logi or some kind of vehicle is either abandoned, disabled or "captured". Whatever. 

Until it has been recaptured another one does not spawn.

 

2. The same logi instead of being abandoned, disabled or "captured" is destroyed. 

 

A new one magically spawns in main. 

 

From a realism perspective, it makes no sense why scenario 1, where a vehicle is lost cannot be replaced but scenario 2 it can be replaced. You were in the military you said and you captured assets. Did you ever say to yourself, lets not destroy that enemy vehicle because if we do they will be able to replace it whereas if we hold on to it, they won't be able to deploy a new one?

 

The only valid explanation for this mechanic is from a game-play perspective. Where teams who don't abandon vehicles are rewarded. However, I think it can be done better. Lets say the SLs can vote and if enough of them vote on a vehicle being "lost" then it gets removed from their vehicle pool (it can no longer be recovered) and a new one spawns the way it would if that vehicle were destroyed. However, the catch is that doing this costs twice as many tickets than simply having the vehicle destroyed. This would be a better mechanic than what we have currently. 

 

 

Usually we prefered to hold onto the vehicle rather than destroy it because destroying it meant leaving it behind,  which usually meant the enemy would come and salvage parts from it in order to build a new one. 

 

So no, destroying it didn't mean a new one magically appeared, but it meant a higher potential for a new one to be built by utilizing whatever working parts were left after we destroyed it.

 

Contrary to popular belief, we didn't carry around C4. Destroying an asset usually just meant destroying a specific part of the asset. We used specific because we figured "if we always destroyed asset Y by breaking part X then they will always have a need for part X and can't simply take 2 broken assets Y to make a new asset Y since both have the same broken part." On a smaller scale,  we always took firing pins from abandoned firearms because they rendered the firearm useless and it was easy to destroy iterally hundreds with only a slight weight gain in gear.

 

But yes,  destroying and abandoning the asset led to the enemy getting some working parts off it and rebuilding it while capturing it meant complete deprivation. 

Edited by Thr34t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2019 at 7:39 AM, Thr34t said:

 

 

Usually we prefered to hold onto the vehicle rather than destroy it because destroying it meant leaving it behind,  which usually meant the enemy would come and salvage parts from it in order to build a new one. 

 

So no, destroying it didn't mean a new one magically appeared, but it meant a higher potential for a new one to be built by utilizing whatever working parts were left after we destroyed it.

 

Contrary to popular belief, we didn't carry around C4. Destroying an asset usually just meant destroying a specific part of the asset. We used specific because we figured "if we always destroyed asset Y by breaking part X then they will always have a need for part X and can't simply take 2 broken assets Y to make a new asset Y since both have the same broken part." On a smaller scale,  we always took firing pins from abandoned firearms because they rendered the firearm useless and it was easy to destroy iterally hundreds with only a slight weight gain in gear.

 

But yes,  destroying and abandoning the asset led to the enemy getting some working parts off it and rebuilding it while capturing it meant complete deprivation. 

 

Right. So whats happening in the game isn't what happened in your scenario. Forces who have a vehicle that is being held hostage cannot deploy another one. It makes no sense but if that same vehicle was destroyed, they would be able to deploy another one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, warrior6 said:

 

Right. So whats happening in the game isn't what happened in your scenario. Forces who have a vehicle that is being held hostage cannot deploy another one. It makes no sense but if that same vehicle was destroyed, they would be able to deploy another one. 

Um no. Right now it is exactly as I stated in my scenario.

 

Abandoned / captured = no new asset.

 

Destroyed  = new asset.

 

Having a magic button destroy the asset to get a new one = dumb.

 

Having to regain control of asset to have asset back = smart.

 

Being able to destroy asset by actual force to get a new asset after a significant delay = logical. 

Edited by Thr34t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 10:07 AM, Thr34t said:

Um no. Right now it is exactly as I stated in my scenario.

 

Abandoned / captured = no new asset.

 

Destroyed  = new asset.

 

Having a magic button destroy the asset to get a new one = dumb.

 

Having to regain control of asset to have asset back = smart.

 

Being able to destroy asset by actual force to get a new asset after a significant delay = logical. 

 

I don't know what else to say to make my point clear. its a pretty simple and easy to understand point but you seem to keep switching arguments or ignoring what I am saying. I already said from a game-play perspective of rewarding behavior I can understand the current mechanic but I offered something that tackles that. You seem to keep ignoring the simple point that there is nothing realistic about a force being unable to deploy a new vehicle because the last one was "abandoned / captured". Currently its "Don't destroy the vehicle, just shoot the tires out so they can't replace the vehicle". Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, warrior6 said:

 

I don't know what else to say to make my point clear. its a pretty simple and easy to understand point but you seem to keep switching arguments or ignoring what I am saying. I already said from a game-play perspective of rewarding behavior I can understand the current mechanic but I offered something that tackles that. You seem to keep ignoring the simple point that there is nothing realistic about a force being unable to deploy a new vehicle because the last one was "abandoned / captured". Currently its "Don't destroy the vehicle, just shoot the tires out so they can't replace the vehicle". Makes no sense.

Lol.

 

You don't understand the simple point of it not being realistic to just magically get an asset back because a button is pressed.

 

It IS realistic to be forced to not have an asset due to it being captured / abandoned.  

 

I really don't understand how you can think otherwise because it takes absolute backwards logic. 

 

My logic is that if a team abandons an asset then they need to recover it in order to have it back. That is logical.

 

My logic is that if an asset is captured the team that lost the asset will no longer have it. That is logical.

 

Your logic is that if a team makes a woopsies and no longer has an asset they can press the magic undo button and have it back. Not logical, not realistic,  and straight up shit gameplay which doesn't reward a team for capturing an asset and gives 0 consequences for wasting assets. 

 

Why is this difficult for you?

Share this post


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

Lol.

 

You don't understand the simple point of it not being realistic to just magically get an asset back because a button is pressed.

 

It IS realistic to be forced to not have an asset due to it being captured / abandoned.  

 

I really don't understand how you can think otherwise because it takes absolute backwards logic. 

 

My logic is that if a team abandons an asset then they need to recover it in order to have it back. That is logical.

 

My logic is that if an asset is captured the team that lost the asset will no longer have it. That is logical.

 

Your logic is that if a team makes a woopsies and no longer has an asset they can press the magic undo button and have it back. Not logical, not realistic,  and straight up shit gameplay which doesn't reward a team for capturing an asset and gives 0 consequences for wasting assets. 

 

Why is this difficult for you?

Agreed. For the time being at least this paradigm is still one of the last few remaining non-Arcade attributes left in Squad. I could see that easily changing though at some point in the future to more warm tummy rubs and soft pats on the head to placate the hurt feelings crowd on Discord and Reddit.

 

Honestly as embecmom always pointed out regardless of vehicle ticket cost values players treat the vehicles as disposable anyway. Case in point, I was playing a match this morning on a fairly popular server and over the course of match one loudmouth flyboy lost 4 Blackhawks and not only played it off in command chat like it was nothing but was honestly upset when I asked him after the third one if he realized how many tickets he'd lost our team.

 

This is the demographic [OWI] is up against so its understandable that the game will inevitably continue to get dumbed down simply to accommodate these kind of folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if there were an option for the enemy team to "capture" abandoned vehicles? Maybe implement an ability for a squad leader to de-spawn an enemy vehicle that hasn't been crewed for five minutes or so.

Doing so could:

  • Drain the enemy tickets by twice the vehicles regular ticket count (or more).
  • Grant a substantial amount of tickets to the team that de-spawned the vehicle.

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

Share this post


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

What if there were an option for the enemy team to "capture" abandoned vehicles? Maybe implement an ability for a squad leader to de-spawn an enemy vehicle that hasn't been crewed for five minutes or so.

Doing so could:

  • Drain the enemy tickets by twice the vehicles regular ticket count (or more).
  • Grant a substantial amount of tickets to the team that de-spawned the vehicle.

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

Wait, how did this become vehicle capturing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Thegreenzzz said:

Wait, how did this become vehicle capturing?

Idk, I'm just responding to recent posts in the thread.

 

Should I make a seperate thread?

Edited by Dufflespud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 9:34 PM, Thr34t said:

Lol.

 

You don't understand the simple point of it not being realistic to just magically get an asset back because a button is pressed.

 

 

- this is already happening with destroyed vehicles.
'Sorry cant deploy all the other vehicles we have in our inventory because the last one was captured. Oh wait its destroyed??? MAGIC BUTTON' lol

 

Quote

-It IS realistic to be forced to not have an asset due to it being captured / abandoned.  

 

- I agree but I would like more consistency with this. The reason why this would work in a real life situation is because there is no replacement available for this battle. It won't matter if it just has the tires shot out or its blown to bits. The only option now is to try and recapture the existing one if possible.   

 

I really don't understand how you can think otherwise because it takes absolute backwards logic. 

 

Quote

My logic is that if a team abandons an asset then they need to recover it in order to have it back. That is logical.

 

Its illogical because we aren't talking about "having it back" we are talking about replacing it. It makes no sense that destroyed vehicles are replaced but captured ones are not. 

 

Quote

Your logic is that if a team makes a woopsies and no longer has an asset they can press the magic undo button and have it back. Not logical, not realistic,  and straight up shit gameplay which doesn't reward a team for capturing an asset and gives 0 consequences for wasting assets. 

It is logical because its consistent within the game's current parameters of vehicles costing tickets and being new ones being deployed that cost tickets. It isn't realistic so my solution to all of this would be to actually have a set number of vehicles in the pool so that assets can't be continuously replaced after a team keeps losing them. That way it won't matter that the last captured vehicle was lost. Now teams will blow up captured vehicles because its a permanent loss to the enemy. 

 

 

Edited by warrior6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 1:25 PM, Dufflespud said:

Idk, I'm just responding to recent posts in the thread.

 

Should I make a seperate thread?

Eh, I doesn’t really matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, warrior6 said:

 

- this is already happening with destroyed vehicles.
'Sorry cant deploy all the other vehicles we have in our inventory because the last one was captured. Oh wait its destroyed??? MAGIC BUTTON' lol

 

 

- I agree but I would like more consistency with this. The reason why this would work in a real life situation is because there is no replacement available for this battle. It won't matter if it just has the tires shot out or its blown to bits. The only option now is to try and recapture the existing one if possible.   

 

I really don't understand how you can think otherwise because it takes absolute backwards logic. 

 

 

Its illogical because we aren't talking about "having it back" we are talking about replacing it. It makes no sense that destroyed vehicles are replaced but captured ones are not. 

 

It is logical because its consistent within the game's current parameters of vehicles costing tickets and being new ones being deployed that cost tickets. It isn't realistic so my solution to all of this would be to actually have a set number of vehicles in the pool so that assets can't be continuously replaced after a team keeps losing them. That way it won't matter that the last captured vehicle was lost. Now teams will blow up captured vehicles because its a permanent loss to the enemy. 

 

 

 

In real life a destroyed asset on the battlefield can be scavenged for parts to make a replacement.

 

Captured assets can't be scavenged for parts to make a replacement.

 

Destroyed =  new asset

Not destroyed / captured = no new asset

 

Simple logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 3:36 PM, Zylfrax791 said:

30 minutes is a complete exaggeration. I've done numerous time trials on all the bigger maps in Squad with transport trucks and the longest it takes to drive from end to end diagonally is less than eight minutes. So that puts you back in the action around the center flags in around 3-4 minutes in either a full sized logi or transport. Small militia or insurgents truck shave around a minute off those times as well. Go in the console and try it if you don't believe me.

 

 

Maybe you missed it or didn't notice, but I was talking about Arma 3 taking 30 minutes, not Squad. I play for the exact reason you mention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
1
On 11/8/2019 at 4:38 PM, Nightingale87 said:

First of all, It wouldnt take you 30 minutes to get back into action and you know it.

I guess multiple people didn't notice that I was talking about Arma 3. I guess i didn't word it right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buddy rally has been scheduled for termination for all factions except insurgents. 

Edited by budder8818

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 11:54 AM, Thr34t said:

 

In real life a destroyed asset on the battlefield can be scavenged for parts to make a replacement.

 

Captured assets can't be scavenged for parts to make a replacement.

 

Destroyed =  new asset

Not destroyed / captured = no new asset

 

Simple logic.

 

In the game the vehicle isn't being captured. Its being held hostage. Otherwise you could take it back to your base or even use it against the enemy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, warrior6 said:

 

In the game the vehicle isn't being captured. Its being held hostage. Otherwise you could take it back to your base or even use it against the enemy. 

Captured = held hostage.  Same thing, different wording. You don't need to use an asset to have it be considered captured. When I was in the military we CAPTURED plenty of assets with no intention to use it against the enemy.  

 

But the logic still sticks,  no matter how much you try to twist it to fit your distorted perspective. 

 

If an asset is not destroyed, but not useable by your team, it is either captured or abandoned.  

 

If it is abandoned it is because your team neglected an asset. They shouldn't be allowed to hit a magic button to undo this mistake. 

 

If the enemy captured it, which basically is any scenario where the asset is on the field but not because it was abandoned,  then your team messed up and shouldn't be able to press a magic button to reset it.

 

It is simple logic,  not sure how this is difficult for anyone. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an argument, not "logic" and not sure how it's difficult to you too understand the difference and accept that others have their own argument.

 

Assets already have magic ability to know when they are destroyed to respawn. Game relies on that magic ability to resupply team with assets. Why are you ok with that magic? Inconsistent

 

More, when you join my team to troll, jump in the tank and drive alone into the enemy flag than disconnect because of all the game bugs/lost connection, my team has to suffer until the end of the round without the tank. Same happens when you drive over small stones and make 90 jump and get stuck/thrown into the skies.

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

×