Jump to content
giammotto

SQUAD could be amazing, but it lacks care

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, giammotto said:

also because 98% leave the game! 3.000 over a million is a bit telling, in my opinion..

Don't become another one of these people using this line. Look at player numbers for similar games in the genre and Squad is up there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the maps being boring and fixing your weapon on to an object for a more stable fire. 

 

 I only really love one map; Tallil Outskirts. It's a clean map (in terms of design), and is one of this biggest maps in the game. It make vehicle battles seem so much more epic and because of its size makes tank battles fun. Only problem is, with the patch 1.6, they introduced a lot more fog now. It makes looking for targets passed 800m almost impossible whereas before u could spot targets of up to 1500m away (which gave a real sense of the size of the map). I used to enjoy playing on Tallil as a tank crew or inf unit but even that is gone now with reduced view distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Melbo said:

Don't become another one of these people using this line. Look at player numbers for similar games in the genre and Squad is up there. 

I´m just curious.

 

What are the numbers of the other games in the genre?

 

I´m also curious. What is the genre SQUAD belongs to?

 

Some people would say FPS...putting it together with COD, BF, Insurgency, Rainbow Six and ARMA.

 

Some would say it´s it´s own thing. So... what is it for you? And what numbers do those games have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Either the game is supposed to be hardcore and niche (then the current player numbers would make sense) or it's going the casual way (in which case there is a huge cause for alarm, because for a casual shooter the numbers would indicate the game is practically dead, or on life support at best). Squad is a casual shooter that's trying its hardest to look like a hardcore one, but you simply can't have a casual game and think it will survive with a niche game's audience - the player retention is far too low for that. 

 

6 hours ago, Melbo said:

Don't become another one of these people using this line. Look at player numbers for similar games in the genre and Squad is up there. 

Would you care to share with us which games are similar to Squad in your opinion? I'm curious.

 

3000 over a million is a bad argument, but I don't think anyone can deny that the players are leaving squad roughly at the same rate that the new ones are coming in. The devs seem to rely far too much on hope that gimmicks such as commander will bring enough new players to offset the bleeding instead of fixing plethora of old problems plaguing the game. Helicopters were supposed to be one of the biggest changes since the introduction of vehicles, yet the player numbers barely moved, that's how little people now care about Squad. A game that is fundamentally flawed because it tries to lure people in with a promise of a teamplay oriented gameplay, but then lacks the courage to implement truly punishing mechanics to enforce cooperation. Nobody can  blame the players for quickly becoming disillusioned and moving on - they're simply not getting what they paid for.

 

No amount of sugarcoating and "everything is fine" attitude is going to save Squad from the simple fact that the game can't deliver on its main promise, and people won't stay around once the realization sets in. It might take a few months for some, because if there's one thing Squad is good at then it's pretending the game is much deeper than it actually is and projecting huge potential, but eventually the illusion breaks and another player is gone.

Edited by MultiSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MultiSquid said:

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Either the game is supposed to be hardcore and niche (then the current player numbers would make sense) or it's going the casual way (in which case there is a huge cause for alarm, because for a casual shooter the numbers would indicate the game is practically dead, or on life support at best). Squad is a casual shooter that's trying its hardest to look like a hardcore one, but you simply can't have a casual game and think it will survive with a niche game's audience - the player retention is far too low for that. 

 

3000 over a million is a bad argument, but I don't think anyone can deny that the players are leaving squad roughly at the same rate that the new ones are coming in. The devs seem to rely far too much on hope that gimmicks such as commander will bring enough new players to offset the bleeding instead of fixing plethora of old problems plaguing the game. Helicopters were supposed to be one of the biggest changes since the introduction of vehicles, yet the player numbers barely moved, that's how little people now care about Squad. A game that is fundamentally flawed because it tries to lure people in with a promise of a teamplay oriented gameplay, but then lacks the courage to implement truly punishing mechanics to enforce cooperation. Nobody can  blame the players for quickly becoming disillusioned and moving on - they're simply not getting what they paid for.

 

No amount of sugarcoating and "everything is fine" attitude is going to save Squad from the simple fact that the game can't deliver on its main promise, and people won't stay around once the realization sets in. It might take a few months for some, because if there's one thing Squad is good at then it's pretending the game is much deeper than it actually is and projecting huge potential, but eventually the illusion breaks and another player is gone.

Most early access shooter titles would love to have sold 1mil copies, have 3000 - 7000 concurrent players  and 20k - 30k+ weekly players, as well as surviving longer than 3 - 6 months after going into early access. Doesn't matter if it's an Arcade, MilSim or mix of both type of early access shooter, most die on arrival or only survive a few months into early access. The fact Squad has reached these types of numbers, and is still alive years after early access is pretty amazing, very few EA shooters make it this far. Some AAA titles don't even reach these numbers, or maintain these numbers for years.

Squad has it's problems, and somethings have taken a while to be addressed or still are pending, but for good reason(aside from the internal priority ladder). You can't please everyone when it comes to things, and some things have to take longer to allow for things to be evaluated and fleshed out before applying the change. 

I do suggest you read this thread, as some really good changes to controversial things are coming.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez. So much doom and gloom. The game is still unique and fun. Also the game is now 99.9% fully functional which is more than you can say about a lot of games in this day and age.

 

Plus now it's essentially evolved into the game that ragingdeath, laughingjack and I came from originally so it's even better in that respect for us.

 

I'd personally hoped for a more serious, gritty, unforgiving and way more realistic experience given the origins of the game but I'm not so ignorant to see that only about 500 people in the world would actually want to play something similar to the ACE3 mod in ARMA3.

 

That said, youth belongs to the young. Turnover is good for business. Forums are nothing buggy whip factories now with some millennials and boomers arguing over trivial nonsense anyway. After 3+ years of basically flatline growth all that's left is keeping up the hype on YouTube, Twitch, Reddit and Discord thus increasing the possibility of making something that appeals to a younger generation with disposable income.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/11/2019 at 8:52 AM, MultiSquid said:

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Either the game is supposed to be hardcore and niche (then the current player numbers would make sense) or it's going the casual way (in which case there is a huge cause for alarm, because for a casual shooter the numbers would indicate the game is practically dead, or on life support at best). Squad is a casual shooter that's trying its hardest to look like a hardcore one, but you simply can't have a casual game and think it will survive with a niche game's audience - the player retention is far too low for that. 

 

Would you care to share with us which games are similar to Squad in your opinion? I'm curious.

 

3000 over a million is a bad argument, but I don't think anyone can deny that the players are leaving squad roughly at the same rate that the new ones are coming in. The devs seem to rely far too much on hope that gimmicks such as commander will bring enough new players to offset the bleeding instead of fixing plethora of old problems plaguing the game. Helicopters were supposed to be one of the biggest changes since the introduction of vehicles, yet the player numbers barely moved, that's how little people now care about Squad. A game that is fundamentally flawed because it tries to lure people in with a promise of a teamplay oriented gameplay, but then lacks the courage to implement truly punishing mechanics to enforce cooperation. Nobody can  blame the players for quickly becoming disillusioned and moving on - they're simply not getting what they paid for.

 

No amount of sugarcoating and "everything is fine" attitude is going to save Squad from the simple fact that the game can't deliver on its main promise, and people won't stay around once the realization sets in. It might take a few months for some, because if there's one thing Squad is good at then it's pretending the game is much deeper than it actually is and projecting huge potential, but eventually the illusion breaks and another player is gone.

Will you marry me?

 

+1

 

Just maybe one point to disagree with:

 

SQUAD can be saved….just not for some of us.

18 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

I'd personally hoped for a more serious, gritty, unforgiving and way more realistic experience given the origins of the game but I'm not so ignorant to see that only about 500 people in the world would actually want to play something similar to the ACE3 mod in ARMA3.

No need to go to that extreme.

 

Removing buddy rally and incresing respawn timer every time somebody diez would already be unforgiving, serious, gritty, without being ACE in ARMA 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2019 at 9:12 PM, Nightingale87 said:

Removing buddy rally and incresing respawn timer every time somebody diez would already be unforgiving, serious, gritty, without being ACE in ARMA 3.

really not sure how to take this comment as there is no inferred intent. my first thought was "seriously? you think this would be unforgiving, etc (Extreme?)?" but after re-reading i can't work out if you're for or against it - due to the preceeding comment that Squad can be saved but only for some.

 

On 29/11/2019 at 6:52 PM, MultiSquid said:

the game can't deliver on its main promise

actually genuinely interested in what people believe is the "main promise" - seems to me there are many differing views on what this is.

 

imo the main promise is this: a realistic FPS game that requires actual teamwork, comms and more than two brain-cells to play and is not a clone of the current and recent-past FPS games. personally, not a fan of some RPG elements but then you don't really need that stuff for the game to still require teamwork, comms and more than two brain-cells.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

really not sure how to take this comment as there is no inferred intent. my first thought was "seriously? you think this would be unforgiving, etc (Extreme?)?" but after re-reading i can't work out if you're for or against it - due to the preceeding comment that Squad can be saved but only for some.

I will explain then.

 

Zilfrax would like to see a more unforgiving gameplay. But he admits that most people wouldnt play something like ARMA 3 (ACE mod). I pointed out that those two mechanics (no buddy rally, and increasing respawn timers) would make it "MORE" unforgiving.

 

I have to admit I´m kind of proud that you can´t easily tell if i´m for it or against it.

 

Basically because I think this whole discussion is a matter of degree, NOT ABSOLUTES. So on the one hand I don´t want to see a fast paced FPS like COD, but on the other hand I don´t want SQUAD to be a complete hardcore game with no rallies, no habs and no respawns (Actually for that we already have SQUAD OPS which is great).

 

So when I advocate for those mechanics, I want the game to become "more" unforgiving, without it necessarily becoming completely unforgiving. Thus my comment to what Zylfrax said.

 

11 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

actually genuinely interested in what people believe is the "main promise" - seems to me there are many differing views on what this is.

Well. I think the fact that we even have these threads criticizing SQUAD´s new approach and the fact that there are "many differing views" proves that there was a "main promise" that is not being delivered.

 

I know everybody feels entitled to support this or that gameplay....

 

Yet, you don´t see me or Multi Squid, or many others, logging in on a COD forum and demanding the game should be slower paced and more unforgiving….do you?

Same, we don´t log in on ARMA´s forum claiming the game should be more Dynamic and casual friendly.

 

But... we DO do all that here. Why is that? well, we first supported this game because of that "MAIN PROMISE", and for some of us, that main promise is quite clear. 

 

COD didn´t promise me anything I liked, that´s Why I didn´t buy it. ARMA promised me somehting very different, that´s Why I bought it and play it for VERY specific gameplay wiht Friends (Scenarios basically).

 

But here we are. SQUAD did promise somehting, which some of us feel is not being delivered. 

 

I still have hope and faith in the developers. The way I see it, once full game is released, if they manage to "take off" they will address certain things for some of us that will please us. For example, whitelisting (and hopefully supporting) mods with different settings.

Share this post


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

For example, whitelisting (and hopefully supporting) mods with different settings.

What good is whitelisting when the clans are basically the front end of the game and all just run the same stock "popular" layers of each map over and over?

 

Needless to say, over the last three years only around 20% of the stock layers of the maps ever even get publicly hosted so essentially a bunch of the devs hard work making different layers and modes is a complete waste of time because after each version they all get wiped anyway and nobody ever got to see them let alone play them other than checking them out in the console.

 

Not only that, you pretty much don't even get to see the first whitelisted CAF mod which is absolutely amazing. Half of the CAF mod team is devs anyway and yet over this long holiday weekend not a single one of the popular NA servers even have any of the maps or layers in their rotations.

 

In theory mods and whitelisting sound "sexy" yet the Steam Workshop is already full of stuff people put a lot of creative energy into that's simply gathering dust.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

What good is whitelisting when the clans are basically the front end of the game and all just run the same stock "popular" layers of each map over and over?

 

Needless to say, over the last three years only around 20% of the stock layers of the maps ever even get publicly hosted so essentially a bunch of the devs hard work making different layers and modes is a complete waste of time because after each version they all get wiped anyway and nobody ever got to see them let alone play them other than checking them out in the console.

 

Not only that, you pretty much don't even get to see the first whitelisted CAF mod which is absolutely amazing. Half of the CAF mod team is devs anyway and yet over this long holiday weekend not a single one of the popular NA servers even have any of the maps or layers in their rotations.

 

In theory mods and whitelisting sound "sexy" yet the Steam Workshop is already full of stuff people put a lot of creative energy into that's simply gathering dust.

I have come to think that you are VERY pessimistic. It´s like you don´t even want people to be happy playing the game they like, or even hope for a better gameplay. Where does that take you?

 

Imagine Devs releasing a YouTube video with a lost of "upcoming supported mods" …. that would get people interested in new options and gameplays. The saky is the limit. But being this negative doesnt help anybody.

Share this post


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

I have come to think that you are VERY pessimistic. It´s like you don´t even want people to be happy playing the game they like, or even hope for a better gameplay. Where does that take you?

 

Imagine Devs releasing a YouTube video with a lost of "upcoming supported mods" …. that would get people interested in new options and gameplays. The saky is the limit. But being this negative doesnt help anybody.

There's nothing "pessimistic" about pointing out the simple fact that the first mod that got whitelisted by the development team has been completely and utterly blacklisted by the private franchises that actually host the front end of the game to the general public. It's simply an observation of an occurrence.

 

It's also not "pessimistic" either to point out the fact that with every patch the development team takes a lot of time and effort to create many different and unique layers and yet the only thing that gets hosted for public consumption is the same old rotation across pretty much all the popular servers. What's the point of even having Destruction and Insurgency modes in the game if nobody is going to actually host those layers?

 

Compared to pretty much every other similar previous title in the genre which had officially hosted servers to me it's always been incomprehensible why you'd want nothing but a bunch of private individuals representing the face of your company to the general public.

 

So yeah, again it's not "pessimistic" to go read that 99.9% of the negative Steam reviews always make reference to a less than satisfactory gaming experience related to the server hosts and yet typically praise the game itself. OP is correct about somebody lacking care but its certainly not the game itself.

Share this post


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

Basically because I think this whole discussion is a matter of degree, NOT ABSOLUTES. So on the one hand I don´t want to see a fast paced FPS like COD, but on the other hand I don´t want SQUAD to be a complete hardcore game with no rallies, no habs and no respawns (Actually for that we already have SQUAD OPS which is great).

please remind me where anyone mentioned "no respawns". yes Squad Ops is the "hardcore" version from what i hear and is very good at it.

however, i still don't understand why yourself and probably others as well, consider a game without player-placed spawns, as opposed to fixed spawns, to be, (more)unforgiving, serious, gritty - all your words.

i wonder if you'd consider JointOps to be too hard/gritty, just because you had to spawn on the Cap - i mean, some in here consider placing the spawn on/in the Cap to be the worst thing ever - it's hilarious - also there was no such thing as wave spawning, no RP's, medics could not revive themselves, headshot/knife = force respawn, no R_AmmoBag or magic R_SandBagWall, encumbrance, etc. ...?

 

17 hours ago, Nightingale87 said:

But here we are. SQUAD did promise somehting, which some of us feel is not being delivered.

and you still have not answered the question, tho admitedly i posed it as an inferred question; what was Squads main promise, from your pov?

 

"I have to admit I´m kind of proud that you can´t easily tell if i´m for it or against it."  - please don't be, it just adds to ambiguity which leads to confusion etc. which is highly unproductive in a text-only environment; if you had been clear the first time you'd have saved yourself doing those other 13 lines of PoliticalSpeak ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

please remind me where anyone mentioned "no respawns". yes Squad Ops is the "hardcore" version from what i hear and is very good at it.

however, i still don't understand why yourself and probably others as well, consider a game without player-placed spawns, as opposed to fixed spawns, to be, (more)unforgiving, serious, gritty - all your words.

i wonder if you'd consider JointOps to be too hard/gritty, just because you had to spawn on the Cap - i mean, some in here consider placing the spawn on/in the Cap to be the worst thing ever - it's hilarious - also there was no such thing as wave spawning, no RP's, medics could not revive themselves, headshot/knife = force respawn, no R_AmmoBag or magic R_SandBagWall, encumbrance, etc. ...?

 

and you still have not answered the question, tho admitedly i posed it as an inferred question; what was Squads main promise, from your pov?

 

"I have to admit I´m kind of proud that you can´t easily tell if i´m for it or against it."  - please don't be, it just adds to ambiguity which leads to confusion etc. which is highly unproductive in a text-only environment; if you had been clear the first time you'd have saved yourself doing those other 13 lines of PoliticalSpeak ;)

 

I think the problem arises because you expect me to be radical in one or the other way. 

 

Well. Sorry. I´m not. I have a Little bit more complex point of view. Lets go over it one by one...

 

4 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

 i still don't understand why yourself and probably others as well, consider a game without player-placed spawns, as opposed to fixed spawns, to be, (more)unforgiving, serious, gritty - all your words.

The anwer to this one is quite simple. The fewer ways a player has to get back into the action, the more "penalized" each of his deaths is going to be. Eventually players become more careful about what they do and how they do it. When players are more caeful a whole new dimensión of gameplay arises.

 

Now, I never even commented on "fix" vs "player-placed rally". This is what makes me think that you read my posts expecting one radical point of view or the other and as you didn´t find it, it was hard to understand. I can comment on that, but I won´t add any more here.

 

5 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

i wonder if you'd consider JointOps to be too hard/gritty, just because you had to spawn on the Cap - i mean, some in here consider placing the spawn on/in the Cap to be the worst thing ever - it's hilarious - also there was no such thing as wave spawning, no RP's, medics could not revive themselves, headshot/knife = force respawn, no R_AmmoBag or magic R_SandBagWall, encumbrance, etc. ...?

I don´t like that mechanic at all. I think that the captured point becoming the new spawn takes away from a great tactical dimensión SQUAD can have by adding placeable fobs, with building and supply points and a basic logistics system.

 

I really think that you read my post imagining something that is not true. 

 

5 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

and you still have not answered the question, tho admitedly i posed it as an inferred question; what was Squads main promise, from your pov?

I think the answer to this was clear. But I will explain.

 

We aren´t asking in COD forums to make the game slower paced and more realism oriented. Because COD didn´t promise that.

 

We aren´t in the ARMA forums asking for a more casual gamer approachble game. Because ARMA didn´t promise that.

 

We are here because SQUAD promised to be PR spiritual successor. Until v13 everything seemed to be shaping up that way. And then it changed. 

If you don´t believe this or you cant see this as a big deal, then please read FUZZHEAD´s posts. He himself is evidence of how "valid" our requests are. He himself addresses these issues in his posts and how he is trying to deal with them. 

 

5 hours ago, LaughingJack said:

"I have to admit I´m kind of proud that you can´t easily tell if i´m for it or against it."  - please don't be, it just adds to ambiguity which leads to confusion etc. which is highly unproductive in a text-only environment; if you had been clear the first time you'd have saved yourself doing those other 13 lines of PoliticalSpeak ;)

 

I read my posts again and I´m quite clear, as long as you read them withouth any assumptions that i´m on one side of the fence or the other. Still, I am obliged to clarify and I hope this is clear now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 11:27 PM, LaughingJack said:

really not sure how to take this comment as there is no inferred intent. my first thought was "seriously? you think this would be unforgiving, etc (Extreme?)?" but after re-reading i can't work out if you're for or against it - due to the preceeding comment that Squad can be saved but only for some.

Lol!

 

I also re-read this. I think your confussion comes from two different comments to two different posts of two different people that were not one the consequence or deduction of the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 11:52 PM, MultiSquid said:

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Either the game is supposed to be hardcore and niche (then the current player numbers would make sense) or it's going the casual way (in which case there is a huge cause for alarm, because for a casual shooter the numbers would indicate the game is practically dead, or on life support at best). Squad is a casual shooter that's trying its hardest to look like a hardcore one, but you simply can't have a casual game and think it will survive with a niche game's audience - the player retention is far too low for that. 

 

Would you care to share with us which games are similar to Squad in your opinion? I'm curious.

 

3000 over a million is a bad argument, but I don't think anyone can deny that the players are leaving squad roughly at the same rate that the new ones are coming in. The devs seem to rely far too much on hope that gimmicks such as commander will bring enough new players to offset the bleeding instead of fixing plethora of old problems plaguing the game. Helicopters were supposed to be one of the biggest changes since the introduction of vehicles, yet the player numbers barely moved, that's how little people now care about Squad. A game that is fundamentally flawed because it tries to lure people in with a promise of a teamplay oriented gameplay, but then lacks the courage to implement truly punishing mechanics to enforce cooperation. Nobody can  blame the players for quickly becoming disillusioned and moving on - they're simply not getting what they paid for.

 

No amount of sugarcoating and "everything is fine" attitude is going to save Squad from the simple fact that the game can't deliver on its main promise, and people won't stay around once the realization sets in. It might take a few months for some, because if there's one thing Squad is good at then it's pretending the game is much deeper than it actually is and projecting huge potential, but eventually the illusion breaks and another player is gone.

I really don't think Squad is a casual game masquerading as a hardcore game. It's simply caught in the middle of these two ideals, and has failed to find a balance. There are aspects of Squad that are "hardcore." Playing vehicles is insanely punishing, and requires considerable coordination to not simply get rocked by anti-tank and enemy armour constantly. Successfully attacking and defending objectives is not just a matter of standing on, or walking towards a point, but rather an active attempt at encirclement or breaking from encirclement. Thoughtful consideration of FOB volume and location affects the outcome of the game. Actual coordination between and within squads is rewarded, at least somewhat. It is simply not the case that you can join the game, spawn in, and have a good time. Even as a regular infantryman, the amount of information that you're give about where the enemy is is weak, it's common for new players to have absolutely no clue where they're getting shot from, and how to prevent it. 

 

All of these things point to the fact that Squad is hardcore, at least in some sense. Hardcoreness is a SCALE, not a binary condition. I think a lot of players do quit, because it is actually too punishing for them, not that they have figured the game out and realized its facile. 

 

However, I do agree that the developers should have more courage in punishing the players. PR's medic system meant that being by yourself made you essentially useless as an infantryman. You had ONE bandage and that wasn't even guaranteed to stop the bleeding if you were hurt enough. This mechanic's removal in Squad means that players can run off by themselves, get shot, and really, even though they're penalized a bit, get on just fine. 

 

I believe there are deeper issues to the way in which a match in Squad unfolds, and they are mostly related to the gamemodes available, and the spawn systems, both of which need some kind of overhaul from a top-down perspective (IE we have a general philosophy of what we want and completely create anew from it, rather than just keep tweaking and preening and picking at it until it gets better).

 

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 40mmrain said:

I really don't think Squad is a casual game masquerading as a hardcore game. It's simply caught in the middle of these two ideals, and has failed to find a balance. There are aspects of Squad that are "hardcore." Playing vehicles is insanely punishing, and requires considerable coordination to not simply get rocked by anti-tank and enemy armour constantly. Successfully attacking and defending objectives is not just a matter of standing on, or walking towards a point, but rather an active attempt at encirclement or breaking from encirclement. Thoughtful consideration of FOB volume and location affects the outcome of the game. Actual coordination between and within squads is rewarded, at least somewhat. It is simply not the case that you can join the game, spawn in, and have a good time. Even as a regular infantryman, the amount of information that you're give about where the enemy is is weak, it's common for new players to have absolutely no clue where they're getting shot from, and how to prevent it. 

 

All of these things point to the fact that Squad is hardcore, at least in some sense. Hardcoreness is a SCALE, not a binary condition. I think a lot of players do quit, because it is actually too punishing for them, not that they have figured the game out and realized its facile. 

 

However, I do agree that the developers should have more courage in punishing the players. PR's medic system meant that being by yourself made you essentially useless as an infantryman. You had ONE bandage and that wasn't even guaranteed to stop the bleeding if you were hurt enough. This mechanic's removal in Squad means that players can run off by themselves, get shot, and really, even though they're penalized a bit, get on just fine. 

 

I believe there are deeper issues to the way in which a match in Squad unfolds, and they are mostly related to the gamemodes available, and the spawn systems, both of which need some kind of overhaul from a top-down perspective (IE we have a general philosophy of what we want and completely create anew from it, rather than just keep tweaking and preening and picking at it until it gets better).

 

Well laid arguments. And I appreciate your point of view. I Specially agree with the claim that this argument is about a SCALE, not a binary condition (like I was trying to explain somebody else).

 

Nevertheless I do think that this game is "masquerading" itself as a hardcore games but is really a casual one. It´s indeed a very interesting topic to discuss, it´s a shame we only have the forum format to do it. So I´ll try to point out a thing or two to keep it simple.

 

One of the aspects is the "baby sitting" of players. While squad on the "casual side" has implemented mechanics to "help" players in many aspects, for example get in the action more quickly, simpler rally spawn mechanics, I think that a more "hardcore" game would create the mechanics and let players learn the ropes to "deal with them". 

This is no secret, and one can read the reasons for implementing and keeping mechanics like buddy rally. Words use were "to help players get into action more quickly until helicopters are added". A help that was not asked for, nor was it necessary, and all it did was make the gameplay become more "casual" by making the environment more unfirgiving.

More of this can be said about permanent rallies.

 

I do agree that some players quit short after they join the game.  They quit because they come with they have an unconcious assumption that a fps is pure action, like what they see in YouTube videos, and this certainly isn´t COD. 

The problem, as I see it, is that DEVELOPERS also realized about this phenomena, so there is a coincidence in the implementation of certain mechanics and the raise in the numbers of people who bought the game and stick around. 

Bascially they made the game "easier" and less "frustrating" so numbers of players Increase. Nothing bad with that, form a business perspective. 

The problem comes for those of us who don´t want to be baby sitted. Those of us who actually want a challenge and we want to have to deal with the frustration using tactics and teamwork.

The players who already learnt the basics of how to stay alive, and can avoid dying and getting frustrated constantly, or the players who want a chanllenge of a very slow learning curve looking for a very rewarding gameplay, Suddenly find that this game became less rewarding.

 

This is a simplified version of a very good and long paper about the topic. https://thinkgamedesign.com/flow-theory-game-design/

 

As a result, we have a game that for some people is an obstacle of itself. 

3 years ago it was unthinkable for me to have people asking for a "self constructing" mechanic, because "building is boring" and a "time wasting diversión from action".

Now some people in the forums ask for things like that. So those people actually don´t appreciate the Deep tactical aspect of a team creating it´s own spawning points, but want more shooting asap.

Another thing I read was people asking for a map on the lower right corner of the screen open all the time. So as to Increase the situational awareness of the players and making it easier to know where to shoot. While I think a more hardcore game should expect people to develop that awareness and not help them.

These are some examples, and luckily, these haven´t been applied. But the fat that they are being propossed by people who have less than 10 posts in the forums, that is, mostly new players, marks a tendency of a game being open to new people coming and agreeing to become "more casual" and "less hardcore" to appeal to those players and make them stick around.

I don´t really think these mechanics will ever be implemented. But then again, I never thought a mechanic like "buddy rally" was to be implemented.

On the other hand, what affects me more was that the old perceived transition towards a more hardcore gameplay has stopped. 

For example, some of us were hoping/expecting/ waiting for the removal of nametags (or the delaying of them) demanding the players to develop IFF skills. Well, what once was a matter of time, now has become somehting that doesn´t look like it will ever happen.

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

×