Jump to content
fuzzhead

Beta 17 Notes from Game Design

Recommended Posts

On 2019-11-26 at 8:48 PM, ExpressDelivery said:

"The intention of adding a Commander role to Squad is two fold: we wanted a way for Squad Leaders to work more closely with each other, but at the same time relieve them of some of the pressure of having to constantly worry about the overall battle situation and re-assessing where they need to be"

 

First you don't increase the cooperation between Squad Leaders with adding a Commander, instead you will add the potential cooperation between the SL and Commander. Second here we are coming to the ridiculous part, you want to relive the SL from the solution that some how is a problem ? "constantly worry about the overall battle situation" or we can say situational awareness which in games like Squad is 90% map and 10% what you see.

What you are trying to achieve is 4 people in 4 cars and three are blind and now that one is expected to make sure the other three are making it without crashing or driving somebody over. Did you try to drive a car without situational awareness ? I am sure the Commander will save that squad that is facing in the same direction and will be shot by 2-3 players that flanked it ! And when the Commander is the solution why he didn't fix this in the past 15 years that I am leading squads? I thing that the gaming developers should after all that time recognize the definition of insanity.

 

Without looking at the map min every 2 min for 5-10-15 s you simply cant make the right decisions regarding the current situation on the map and that is sadly a fact, regardless when you are a SL or a normal solder on the ground !

Relieving the SLs making teamwide decisions does not mean they should stop watching the map or using their squaddies for situational awareness. It just means that there is a dedicated team planner that can synthesize situational awareness on a team-wide scale. This was already voluntarily done by some SLs most games, but now these SLs can take commander role and have a bit more legitimacy based on the voting system. SLs should be able to focus on the local concerns of their squad and leave team planning to the commander, whose focus on the strategic map and team assets will augment, not detract from, map-wide situational awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2019-11-26 at 3:34 PM, fuzzhead said:

Wont it make players drive more recklessly? This is definitely a concern that we have and we will be monitoring the way players use this feature, we do not want this feature to be abused, either for trolling or for a way to give reckless drivers even less reasons to drive carefully.

Re: Vehicle Recovery

I would add that the in-vehicle collision damage mentioned earlier should discourage reckless driving, if it is punishing enough. If you want realistic vehicle use, there needs to be realistic consequences for recklessness. I hear you about the UE4 limitations though. Best of luck balancing :D 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Vehicle Bay Addition

Love this! Would suggest adding SL ability to requisition vehicles with a faction-wide SL vote to confirm, so that a team without commander can purchase vics. 

 

Some design questions: Do we need a vehicle cleanup system if vehicles can be purchased with CRPs? Can the layer-based vehicle pools be replaced by layer-based CRPs at round start (for greater gameplay variety and player agency)?

 

Edited by pinko
More stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2019 at 12:48 PM, Sparcany said:

Any plans to release a list of the voice lines for each faction?

If there weren't already, we can probably make that happen in the notes. =) Thanks for the suggestion!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/11/2019 at 5:01 PM, FeatherSton3 said:

Does this mean tutorial with AI is coming? Like the PAX demo?

 

Also, surprised that the FTL changes did not include the use of the "G" key to be used to communicate with those just in the same fireteam.

Tutorial AI is still a possibility, alot of experimentation has been done, although theres alot of bugs and polish that would need to be made. For the time being, we are commited to a tutorial with that exposes alot of the "Tribal knowledge" of Leadership in squad, likely thru diagrams, billboards, etc. Having a "practical testing" with AI bots to coincide with the billboards would obviously be preferred, but no promises on that for now as that will require heavy focus on fixing various AI issues.

 

FTL "G" key - this could be implemented somewhat quickly, although the implications of opening yet another channel for VOIP comms (and one that can easily supercede Squad Leaders comms) is something that we will have to cautiously consider. The ideal method for comms between Fireteam members is local VOIP - although we do see the utlity in allowing Fireteam members longer range comms, we want to encourage fireteams to actively work in proximity to one another, instead of acting as independent entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/11/2019 at 5:48 PM, ExpressDelivery said:

"The intention of adding a Commander role to Squad is two fold: we wanted a way for Squad Leaders to work more closely with each other, but at the same time relieve them of some of the pressure of having to constantly worry about the overall battle situation and re-assessing where they need to be"

 

First you don't increase the cooperation between Squad Leaders with adding a Commander, instead you will add the potential cooperation between the SL and Commander. Second here we are coming to the ridiculous part, you want to relive the SL from the solution that some how is a problem ? "constantly worry about the overall battle situation" or we can say situational awareness which in games like Squad is 90% map and 10% what you see.

What you are trying to achieve is 4 people in 4 cars and three are blind and now that one is expected to make sure the other three are making it without crashing or driving somebody over. Did you try to drive a car without situational awareness ? I am sure the Commander will save that squad that is facing in the same direction and will be shot by 2-3 players that flanked it ! And when the Commander is the solution why he didn't fix this in the past 15 years that I am leading squads? I thing that the gaming developers should after all that time recognize the definition of insanity.

 

Without looking at the map min every 2 min for 5-10-15 s you simply cant make the right decisions regarding the current situation on the map and that is sadly a fact, regardless when you are a SL or a normal solder on the ground !

I agree that Map information is an important aspect of Squad (some would say TOO important with too much info revealed to the player thru the map).
Increasing cooperation between Squads (ie Team-wide cooperation) is definitely a goal of CO, I think you may be getting lost in the words there.

When Squad's are communicating their status, requests and victories, the intent is for the whole team to increase their level of coordination and comms, facilitated thru a CO role.

If you have specific suggestions or feedback on what the CO is lacking, would love to hear it :)

On 26/11/2019 at 5:57 PM, Supernaut said:

Interesting and appreciated.

The re-spawn rules for a game like this are the heart and soul of the flow of the game and literally dictate how people play the game. I'd prefer it if you considered being more draconian on RP destruction and regeneration. I went mental when PR introduced 60s RP de-spawning but it took me literally one game to see the genius and vision of the devs.

Tbh, at the moment Squad is a meat grinder. Better than it was before FOB overrun mechanics (good god, the horror) and I realize the devs are trying out different models but I just thought I'd throw my opinion in.

Thank you Supernaut, and I agree with you, I would love to see some various Rallypoint systems trialed. 
Respawn system is a HUGE component of what makes Squad unique, and also how the pacing of the game plays out, and I agree that the current Rallypoint system and pacing is not ideal.

 

On 27/11/2019 at 1:17 AM, paragonid said:

Yeah. Remove friendlies from the map in hardcore gamemod pls

This would be an awesome toggle to experiment with! A simple mod that does this would be a good starting point, and if proven popular, perhaps down the line after v1.0 release could be considered as an option?

 

On 27/11/2019 at 2:03 AM, Mauti said:

First @fuzzhead kudos and thank you very much for this very detailed insights. Totally appreciate them as player and game designer myself. 

 

One of my highlights here: priority audio ducking and seperate audio channels sound wonderful! Can't wait for it.

No problem, hoping to continue the open dialog. I agree VOIP is such a vital part of Squad, it will be incredibly helpful when we can implement them.

 

On 27/11/2019 at 3:05 AM, Mauti said:

In addition to my post above I read a few times game systems didn't work as planned and as a result you created/tried out a new system to counter that behaviour.


From my experience such counter-measures work only short-term but in the end you create systems for systems for systems instead of sometimes taking a step back or may remove them alltogether.

 

I'm sure you are aware of this yourself nevertheless I wanted to state that because from a pure player perspective so many working mechanics were removed or altered around v12/v13 that lots of issues are still arising from those updates or the combination of them and I think nobody really knows what mechanic changed which dynamics.


To name just one example: supression effects until v10 or v11 were super strong. I never experienced anything like that in a game before. They really kept your head down and although it didn't look real flying bullets felt like a real threat.

This mechanic gave an upper hand to the player with the better overview and position and the others had to carefully crawl back out of the "supression zone" and flank or wait until the attacker has to reload.  This caused not only a lot of sweaty palms on my side, but it also allowed and even forced players to flank the enemy because one player could lock down a zone completely. These effects not only prolonged firefights and enemy encouters but also created wonderful tensions that let you value your player life. Since surpression and sway effects were drastically nerfed you can almost always immediate return fire. If you start to shoot at two or more enemies at once nowadays your chance to die from return fire is almost 100%. The resulting impact on firefights and squad movement is beyond words. 
It's not only something I really miss but is a good example how a minor mechanic and code change affects the whole game experience. 

 

To sum up sometimes you have to look back to go forward. 

Your analysis of the buddy rally mechanic, the original motivation behind it, and the unwanted resulting game dynamics are a promising start. Thank you for involving us in your design process.

Complete Gameplay Systems versus Short term counter-measures - I agree with you - Gameplay Systems need to be built to co-exist with the rest of Squad and to help drive player behaviour towards the vision of Squad. I agree v13 was really packed full of alot of changes, and was "too much all at once", and some changes were not necessarily a step towards the vision of Squad. I believe there were mistakes made, and as Lead Game Design I take responsibility for letting that happen on my watch. I am confident that we as a team have learned some lessons and have grown from that experience, for the better. I hope in the future we will not make similar mistakes, and if/when mistakes are made, they will be corrected in a much faster turn around time.

 

Suppression System - I am not happy with the current configuration of the suppression system. I agree that the current compromise of the Suppression system is not ideal for tactical fire and manuver gameplay or for the overall vision of Squad, emphasizing coordination and communication. I have expressed that we would like to get some tweaks and additional values added for suppression configuration that would allow for a more balanced and nuanced Suppression system that give firefights a more authentic feeling with more chances for fire and manuver tactics to thrive.

On 27/11/2019 at 4:40 AM, Covalent said:

Still no forced shadows?  The game is so badly unbalanced without them being forced on everyone.

 

Vehicles need thermals to be competitive.  The excuse of 'people can see further now in Squad compared to PR' doesn't work, when every damn map is filled with foliage that blocks view lines toward objectives, and fog that disguises everything after 400m.

Forced Shadows - We are in the process of updating to 4.23, with a full stage of optimizations planned early in 2020. I am hopeful we will be able to address the issue of players with high end systems choosing Low/None settings to gain advantage, as I agree it does not sit well with balanced, fair play.

 

Vehicle Thermals - Some experimentation has been made, but it is a major change to the way vehicles operate, and risk/reward and pros/cons of using thermal sites would have to be fully implemented (IE ability to disable a vehicles thermal sites, a limit to the range of the thermal vision, so there is more thoughtful gameplay around the mechanic). Currently at this time we are not actively pursuing this feature. That may change post v1.0, please keep the discussion of this on going.

On 27/11/2019 at 5:36 AM, deviro said:

Without critisizing or praising specific points, I just want to say thank you for letting us know about some past, current and potentially future aspects of the game. This goes a long way to understand wtf you guys are trying to do. Please do this for every update. Transparency like this will make people like me more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt instead of questioning why you guys walk 1 step forward then 2 back and then 5 forward and 4 back.

 

My current assestment with all the changes and implementations you've reached so far I can place Squad at around 2008-9 era PR. You are experimenting and trying to fix issues you brough on yourself from early on and there's still lots to do until you reach that PR v1.0 you fought for all those years ago.

 

I will not rant anymore, but rather congratulate you on releasing another major update.

Thanks deviro, yes its an on-going process, and will do my best to continue writing about this design process. Won't promise every single release to have a thorough explaination of changes, but I will try to do one especially when there is balance and meta changes embedded.

On 27/11/2019 at 8:24 AM, abe said:

Thank you for this post. By outlining your vision for the game and the development process more transparently it goes a very long way toward reassuring the player base, and also helping to quell some of their fears. After all you don't need me to tell you how vocal this community is when it comes to game design changes! It really helps put into context exactly why certain design decisions are made and when/if to expect an update in future. The details in your post also help give us a glimpse into a brighter and more optimistic future for Squad teamwork and cohesion.

Thanks for the words of encourgement abe :)

 

On 27/11/2019 at 11:21 AM, Bidet said:

- The difference between ak74 and 5.56 NATO damage is HUGE (far too huge from a gameplay perspective), its the difference between a 2 and 3 shot kill if you hit an inner limb. So in practice the ak74 kill in more or less 3 hit while all the other weapons, only 2. I understand that the 5.56 Nato is slightly more powerfull than 5.45 but not by this amount gameplay wise. I think bumping the 5.56 to 64 and 5.45 of the ak74 to 62 could do the trick if you want to keep the "5.56 is more powerfull than 5.45" aspect. or at least balance it recoil wise.

 

Also, why all the others 5.45 weapons have 62 dmg? its the same ammo. The 60dmg to ak74 seems to be an "overnerf" to whole factions, because when its the "main" assault rifle, the whole faction is impacted with no reason behind it.

 

Here is the dmg stats for informations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wx2hNbvcr9g5w14JiamjvqBvnsphkFDGYwnVinFzNfs/edit#gid=0

 

-There is also a lot of issue/errors with zooming levels of each sights.

 

- do you have plan to rework russian zoom scope? with the zoom level and resolution of computers the ranging dots are more or less unreadables, which is not the case in real life.

 

- There is a sensitivity issue with iron sight when focusing, the sensitivity stay the same as unfocused, so basically when focusing the sensitivity is too high because of the zoom level.

 

- Do you have any plan on improving iron sight? Since IRL there is no" pixe"l or "resolution" you dont have any issue seeing "things" at longer range. Thats why in lot of game to compensate this, there is a zoom even with iron sight. In squad we are forced to use "focus" with the sensitivity issue above. 

Maybe remove the zoom level of focus and add the zoom for "base" unfocused iron sight?

- Small arms projectile damage values are not finalized. We are aware there is some balancing issues. Also to go along with damage stats, an important element is "average hit zones" - IE thing like arms get hit quite often since they are always exposed and in front of the player, so this affects "average number of shots to kill"

- Small arms scopes/magnification levels are not finalized. I agree Russian scopes need some love.

- Ironsite sensitivity issue - on the list of issues to address.

- Ironsite default zoom - this oftens comes down to user preference, but I agree a solution needs to be made, it is on the list of things to address eventually.

 

On 27/11/2019 at 11:51 AM, PR.IT Aragorn89 said:

Could i say that i really love this kind of blogposts? Is a nice way for us (the users) to know what is going on inside the Game Designer mind.

 

Thank you Fuzz <3 for the time spent to write this article, i truly love this approach of you.

 

Will you like to take some feedback on some of the point EVEN if they are not settle down or written in stone?

Cheers Aragorn89 :)
Yes for sure, open for feedback, send away!

On 28/11/2019 at 3:56 AM, Tmac said:

Thanks Fuzz, we appreciate your transparency a lot.


For me, without a doubt, the most important part concerns the elimination of the Buddy Rally.
Interesting the idea of the "Vehicle Bay" and the "Commander Resource Points". I hope that in the future we will be able to give new importance to the Super Fob or at least Fob of medium size and not just now as in Radio + Hab + Ammo Crates.

 

Negative notes: enough (indeed very) disappointed not to have heard any mention on the infantry gameplay in general.

Especially on the suppression (non-existent at present) and on the speed, movementes and precision of the soldier to sprint "all over" and make headshots with a disarming ease. Two fundamental factors (in addition to the Baddy Rally) to create more cohesion among the squad, reduce the lone wolfing and "lengthen" the gunfights.

 

From v13 with the new speed, the almost total absence of the soldier's inertia in moving and turning and subsequently shooting made infantry gameplay much more frenetic and less tactical. I would no longer like to see in the future (as happens above all from v13 to date) that the best tactic is to run, run and still run and shoot and repeat.

Suppression - As I wrote above to Mauti, not happy with its current configuration, hopefully some tweaks will be made in the future.

Movement Speeds -  the +10% movement speed change of V13 was not preferred by me, I think 5% would be much more reasonable. My preferred solution would be incoporating a much more nuanced "dash" action, rather than wholesale increased movement speed, in combination with a "lowered weapon stance" action, which would "reward" the player with both slightly increase normal walking speed, and stamina regen, at the "risk" of having gun not "at the ready", which would take 0.5 - 0.8 seconds to "Ready" the weapon. This to me would look much more natural and give players more flexibility and control over how their character moves. At this time we dont have plans to implement any of those features though, but please keep that discussion going, It is good to hear players are not happy about the movement speed.

Accurate Snapshooting from Sprint - I agree this is definitely not ideal and definitely contributes to that lonewolf run and gun style gameplay. Implementing a sway that is based on movement, to reduce the effectiveness of "Sprint,Snapshoot,Sprint", would be a good direction to move towards, its currently not on the immediate plans but it needs addressing.

On 28/11/2019 at 5:11 AM, suds said:

Please reset the timer on any use of the vic, eg taking ammo from it or even activating the radial menu of that vic.

Also add some indication of the inactive timer being reached or close to the point where damage may occur. 

 

I park sensibly and always intend to reuse a vic. This is particularly important on large maps. I would like to be able to reset the timer from the spam screen as well, perhaps limit this to vics you have a claim on to prevent trolls resetting all the timers.

I believe the timer will reset if you rearm or take a new kit off the vehicle. Keeping in mind this system is only activated if the vehicle is unoccupied, and over 150 meters from a friendly RP or FOB. And with 20 minute timer (plus 3-4 minutes of burn time), players that park sensibly should be much less affected by this mechanic. Though admitedly it still may be possible to have this happen to you on the largest maps when doing wide flanking manuvers etc. UI Indication of inactive timer is a good idea, though where best to show this as map screen real estate is in short supply. Resetting the timer on the map screen is probably more depth to the feature than we intend to go. Curious to hear now that some time has passed, if you have noticed this system affecting you heavily or does it not come up that often with the 20min timer?

On 28/11/2019 at 1:35 PM, LaughingJack said:

why? why not just stick to RP's instead of designing another unneccisary complication?

On 26/11/2019 at 12:34 PM, fuzzhead said:

If an unoccupied vehicle is further than 150 meters from a friendly FOB, RP or Main, the vehicle will begin a 20 minute timer to start burning.

150m is not too much? would it allow cheesing of this so that vics could be held simply by clever spacing of fob's etc. ? - hope these are adjustable.

Insurgent Tunnels - by no means is it a finalized feature to be worked on. The idea behind it is NOT a respawn feature, but rather a "Quick Travel" feature that gives insurgents more flexibility. Your feedback is noted though.

 

Vehicle Cleanup @ 150m activiation - yes it is quite a large radius, we do not want the vehicle cleanup system to be a prominent part of gameplay, but rather something that happens in the background when a teams abandoned vehicles are quite far from the frontlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2019 at 10:43 PM, Comm@ndo said:

These constant crashes both in game and at the end of round is making this game unbearable. I wait 15 minutes to join a server, play 15 minutes before the game CTD and I then need to sit in a queue for another 30 minutes.

 

Stop implementing more crap & fix the actual game

I'm sorry to hear you are having these CTD issues. We are hopeful the next update has a fix once-and-for-all for the "End of the Round" Client Crash. Which constant crashes in game are you experiencing?

 

On 01/12/2019 at 10:45 PM, mquintana22 said:

It's an awesome initiative to keep players informed like this. I'm also glad that the devs want us to use the vehicles as an integral part of our unit. One way to achieve this, might be letting infantry shoot from a moving vehicle. In addition to making the vehicles less static objects. For example, control other components of the vehicles like windows, doors, wipes, etc. Generation Kill is a great source for ideas. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by mquintana22

I would personally LOVE this!!! Some breif experimentation was made, it would be a large undertaking to get this happening. Not saying it will NEVER happen, but if it did this "Wishlist" item would be pushed into the far future.

On 03/12/2019 at 12:48 PM, Sparcany said:

Any plans to release a list of the voice lines for each faction?

We do have a voice lines doc, message me on discord and I can send you a copy of it.

On 12/12/2019 at 1:33 PM, Fish said:

Loving this post and the transparency that is shown behind the dev's thought processes. @fuzzhead would you be so kind to let us know if the development still includes eventual 100 player servers? Also, do you intend to retain the ability for all players to revive others as part of the game (as opposed to just medics) through release?

100 player servers - this is still the goal, yes. When we have a testable build with optimizations needed to get more players, I'm sure it will be posted for everyone to come in and help us test!! Lots of optimization paths pushing towards this goal currently.

 

All Players Revive Capability versus Only Medics Revive - Will respond to this in detail later on, placeholder for now is, Yes we intend to keep the full revive capability to all team members, though there may be tweaks on the timing for Non medic revives (as well as other tools to help)

 

On 03/01/2020 at 7:48 AM, pinko said:

Re: Vehicle Bay Addition

Love this! Would suggest adding SL ability to requisition vehicles with a faction-wide SL vote to confirm, so that a team without commander can purchase vics. 

 

Some design questions: Do we need a vehicle cleanup system if vehicles can be purchased with CRPs? Can the layer-based vehicle pools be replaced by layer-based CRPs at round start (for greater gameplay variety and player agency)?

Vehicle Bay use without CO - 

Vehicle Cleanup System not necessary if Command Resource Points implemented - It is a good discussion point - I think it may be too early to say, but certainly would make the system alot more redundant. I would love for CRP to replace the cleanup system completely if possible.

CRP Vehicle Requests Replacing Layer Based Vehicle Pools - I dont think we would go that direction (at least intially), although we would likley create a few map layers with minimal (or no) vehicles by default, to experiment with. I think a standard vehicle pool at start of a round would have Logistics/Transport and a couple Light/Medium vehicles, and perhaps the Light/Medium vehicles do not have a respawn timer, but the Logistics/Transports are "free" and will always respawn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fuzzhead said:

Curious to hear now that some time has passed, if you have noticed this system affecting you heavily or does it not come up that often with the 20min timer?

re your requested feedback. Without observation It is not possible to tell if a vic has automatically burned or an enemy has destroyed it.

I have not been negatively effected by loss of a vic since this feature was added but would still like a UI indicator of some sort to prevent wasted recovery journeys the same indicator could allow SL to mark a vic as damaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2020 at 10:55 PM, fuzzhead said:

 

- Small arms projectile damage values are not finalized. We are aware there is some balancing issues. Also to go along with damage stats, an important element is "average hit zones" - IE thing like arms get hit quite often since they are always exposed and in front of the player, so this affects "average number of shots to kill"

- Small arms scopes/magnification levels are not finalized. I agree Russian scopes need some love.

- Ironsite sensitivity issue - on the list of issues to address.

- Ironsite default zoom - this oftens comes down to user preference, but I agree a solution needs to be made, it is on the list of things to address eventually.

 

First,  @fuzzhead, thanks for the answer. Its quite rare to have a discution with devs (all game, not squad specific) now a day.

 

- Agree with what you said, about the "average number of shots to kill". Thats why I've talked about the huge imbalance between AK74 and other weapons: Basically with 2 shot center torso, M4 and ak74 kills in 2 shots, but in the case of 1 shot center torso + one shot to the arm, the M4 kills in 2 shot but the AK in 3 Shot. Thats a HUGE imbalance since this kind of things happen A LOT with the size and position of arms. So basically in the majority of situation the M4 is 50% more efficient than the AK74...

 

- For the iron sight, there is IMO a lot of easy solution:

-If we just look a PS were about 95 of weapons have iron sight, the zoom of the focus is X2 AND focus time is unlimited. Its a HUGE difference, and in PS i've been able to easily kill someone at more than 250m. So this simple solution just work, and shouldn't be too dificult to put in Squad. This PS example also show why iron sight in game simply dont work without adjustments with computers/screens technical limitations, and I dont think that being at 2cm of your screen to try to see something is a "gameplay feature"

- An other solution could be to have a base zoom of 1.25 (or 1.5) like the majority of FPS game, and keep an focus mode with slightly more zoom (1.8 or 2), or even have the option in the "gameplay option" to have permanent zoom if some peoples want to keep playing with the actual iron sight no zoom madness.

- Today the iron sights are so unreliable that entire factions and roles are just avoided (insurgent, militia, lmg without zoom, etc etc....). A huge part of your game is just going to "garbage" because of this. The fact that the insugent/militia faction have a very low winrate ration in front of others army is not a balance issue like "tunnel" or things like this, its just the fact that their weapons are mostly unusable because of screen and computers limitations.

 

Thanks

Edited by Bidet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2020 at 4:55 PM, fuzzhead said:

My preferred solution would be incoporating a much more nuanced "dash" action, rather than wholesale increased movement speed, in combination with a "lowered weapon stance" action, which would "reward" the player with both slightly increase normal walking speed, and stamina regen, at the "risk" of having gun not "at the ready", which would take 0.5 - 0.8 seconds to "Ready" the weapon.

^This sounds amazing - would love to see a system like that.

 

+1 for FOV zoom with iron sights. Iron sights should be a handicap, not a death sentence.

 

Also, with regards to suppression, using dynamic depth of field seems like the most ideal solution. Using increased weapon sway as the suppression effect never made sense to me, this just makes people return fire less accurately (and the tunnel vision effect doesn't seem very effective either). With dynamic depth of field it would make people put their head down and look for cover. I don't think you'll ever make everyone happy with the suppression system, but I think we can agree that the current system does diddly poo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 6:01 PM, FeatherSton3 said:

 the use of the "G" key to be used to communicate with those just in the same fireteam.

^Good idea, or to communicate with just other fireteam leaders within the squad. 

 

Things I personally would like in Squad: Pilot-able jets(maps made larger), attack helicopters, modular player damage, Team Deathmatch, the ability to finish off downed players by dealing more damage to head/chest; and as I've said before: more customizable kits, 50v50, and custom squad sizes.

Edited by PrimeEleven

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

×