Jump to content
BANGHART

Squad has become too "gamey" and meta.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Pastah said:

I agree, the whole game and community feels incredibly gamey and meta, I thought it was supposed to be a milsim. I don't think it's vehicles alone that's the problem.

  • Die on purpose to move around the map faster because objectives
  • Get fireteam leader just to mark things and not actually command a fireteam
  • Direct chat to squad leaders because devs haven't made a proper split-ear radio system
  • People rush to the same key points in a map to win games
  • SLs use markers to label contacts and directions
  • Everyone relies on markers on map or hud

Strongly Agree +1, especially with the "People rush to the same key points in a map to win games"

Spoiler

A new (Nearly the same) experience every time (even on different Maps/Layers),

At the heart of Squad is our desire to let the player drive gameplay and (around our) define the objectives.

Commanders and squad leaders will be given the ability to shape the battlefield through construction of defensive and offensive fortifications as well as control of battlefield (but most of the time a simple Radio/HAB/Ammo is more than enough,) planning and supplemental combined arms assets (are purely optional as long your team has the better aim).

Coupled with this, spawn dynamics will be affected by occupation of territories and level of supply each objective is receiving (placing rally's and building FOB's). Organized (Rush the middle will) control of the battlefield will (and) ensure a(n advantage,) properly supported supply structure and pave the way for a strategic victory(, can be completely skipped if you rush their first flag).
It's all about teamwork twitch reflexes!

I know it's harsh but that bothers me for years now and I really regret to be a backer. I truly hope that will change someday but my patience is starting to running low.

Edited by Phoenixstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Phoenixstorm said:

Strongly Agree +1, especially with the "People rush to the same key points in a map to win games"

  Hide contents

A new (Nearly the same) experience every time (even on different Maps/Layers),

At the heart of Squad is our desire to let the player drive gameplay and (around our) define the objectives.

Commanders and squad leaders will be given the ability to shape the battlefield through construction of defensive and offensive fortifications as well as control of battlefield (but most of the time a simple Radio/HAB/Ammo is more than enough,) planning and supplemental combined arms assets (are purely optional as long your team has the better aim).

Coupled with this, spawn dynamics will be affected by occupation of territories and level of supply each objective is receiving (placing rally's and building FOB's). Organized (Rush the middle will) control of the battlefield will (and) ensure a(n advantage,) properly supported supply structure and pave the way for a strategic victory(, can be completely skipped if you rush their first flag).
It's all about teamwork twitch reflexes!

I know it's harsh but that bothers me for years now and I really regret to be a backer. I truly hope that will change someday but my patience is starting to running low.

Vanilla will never be for players who want a more realistic tactical gameplay. Lets just wait and request/ask for server settings, and MOD support.

 

I want to think that Vanilla will be the enter gate to a more realistic experience with more unique gameplay, and whoever wants to stay with the vanilla will be able to do it, but the rest of us will have the opportunity to experience what was promised.

 

Share this post


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

Vanilla will never be for players who want a more realistic tactical gameplay. Lets just wait and request/ask for server settings, and MOD support.

 

I want to think that Vanilla will be the enter gate to a more realistic experience with more unique gameplay, and whoever wants to stay with the vanilla will be able to do it, but the rest of us will have the opportunity to experience what was promised.

 

The trouble with that idea is the simple fact that the Vanilla game is realistically speaking the only version of the game that will ever get the financial support from specific communities to be a viable proposition. Ergo, even if you were allowed to handcraft an almost identical experience to PR you'd be right back to square one with super low player counts because it's in the custom browser.

 

Look at it from this perspective. The whole thing is self perpetuating. In the vanilla game clan "XYZ" gets together the minimum requirements of 10 admin, gets server license, pays for two 80 player servers with the high performance Platinum package at $200 a month. Now they have to grow their clan in basically an Amway or Tupperware pyramid scheme based on a Discord page with enhanced roles and constant new recruitment that pays dues. The whole thing requires deep pockets, constant new recruits and an entire army of players to sit idle in servers in order to kickstart and populate them. Plus a whole lot of hype to maintain the whole process.

 

Ironically enough if you were paying attention pretty much the biggest clan in the world had a couple of prominent Squad servers from the very beginning up until about a year ago when they pulled the plug because due to lack of interest. Recently they came back but the server has sat empty simply because they don't have the numbers to populate it. Ponder that for a minute.

 

Now apply this formula to your PR clone mod sitting over on the dusty shelf called the "Custom Browser". You'd better have deep pockets is all I can say. Battlemetrics typically shows around 30k unique players, 3k daily peaks and 400 official servers with around 300 of them empty so you and friends would probably have better luck going to Las Vegas or Monte Carlo honestly.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of suggestions about increasing ticket costs to discourage wreckless play, but I don't think that will work. Hear me out:

 

New players don't know their negative impact. There will always be a sizable portion of players that simply do not know what their life or asset is worth to the team. They will learn (largely by the flaming they get in comms), but there's always new noobs to take their place (as there should be for a healthy game). 

 

Ticket values are abstract. Only when tickets become low (<50 or so) do they seem to have any impact in slowing the game down. When tickets are plentiful, who can say how much they are worth in exchange for gaining ground on the active cap? Especially when factoring in ticket gain/loss and bleed should you let the other team take it. Try and work out the math in game and communicate that to the team, and watch the toxic aftermath. Everyone's worked out a different calculus, and the variables from game to game are too much for a golden rule of ticket conservation.

 

Everyone is selfish when it comes to fun. It's a game and we all log in for a fight. Nobody wants to sit out of the action for any great length of time and no amount of ticket cost is going to convince the average player to forego fun. Nor should they. The point after all is to have fun. This is a good thing too, as it drives the action. The problem is that game assets and mechanics now provide too much opportunity to empower that drive.

 

Tickets should be balanced to provide a reasonable average game time (30 min - 2 hrs or so), and I think OWI is doing an admirable job in achieving that. 

 

Game tempo should be adjusted by tempo mechanics (e.g. spawning, ammo use, vehicles). These are the hard limits to tempo. Increasing ticket loss will just decrease game time, not reduce game tempo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

The trouble with that idea is the simple fact that the Vanilla game is realistically speaking the only version of the game that will ever get the financial support from specific communities to be a viable proposition. Ergo, even if you were allowed to handcraft an almost identical experience to PR you'd be right back to square one with super low player counts because it's in the custom browser.

 

Look at it from this perspective. The whole thing is self perpetuating. In the vanilla game clan "XYZ" gets together the minimum requirements of 10 admin, gets server license, pays for two 80 player servers with the high performance Platinum package at $200 a month. Now they have to grow their clan in basically an Amway or Tupperware pyramid scheme based on a Discord page with enhanced roles and constant new recruitment that pays dues. The whole thing requires deep pockets, constant new recruits and an entire army of players to sit idle in servers in order to kickstart and populate them. Plus a whole lot of hype to maintain the whole process.

 

Ironically enough if you were paying attention pretty much the biggest clan in the world had a couple of prominent Squad servers from the very beginning up until about a year ago when they pulled the plug because due to lack of interest. Recently they came back but the server has sat empty simply because they don't have the numbers to populate it. Ponder that for a minute.

 

Now apply this formula to your PR clone mod sitting over on the dusty shelf called the "Custom Browser". You'd better have deep pockets is all I can say. Battlemetrics typically shows around 30k unique players, 3k daily peaks and 400 official servers with around 300 of them empty so you and friends would probably have better luck going to Las Vegas or Monte Carlo honestly.

First of all there are 3 options and you only adressed one: Modding. You haven´t commented on Different game mode supported within the game and / or server settings. So I´ll talk mostly about that.

 

I´m sorry but I disagree.

 

Your logic is sound. But, you asume that all kinds of players are the same.

 

In my experience in the videogame world (and other hobbies) I´ve come to learnt that very different gamers have very different habits and ways. Players who like casual games, also tend to play them casually. So people who enjoy SQUAD (because it has become casual) also enjoy and very often play other casual games (many examples can be set here). Whereas players who like hardcore simulation, tend to support, develop and grow communitites that last because of their hardcore dedication to their hobby. Take for example DCS players. A game incredibly expensive. Nobody would come up with a game like that for an audience that wouldnt support it. But fans of air simulation pay 80€ for a SINGLE plane. And the business keeps going. Take PR for example. Not a business. But a VERY dedicated community. Because that kind of gamer is VERY passionate about what they like, and what they like is not found in many places. 

 

ARMA is another example. Expensive. Very expensive. Very demanding when it comes to updates and mods. Still. The content and the passion with which that community is so healthy and alive is proof of my point. Hadrocre gamers are passionate and are CRAZY about what they like. 

 

Another example of what can become of SQUAD with modes is what happens in Warthunder. Less than 2% of the players play SIMULATOR mode. Still, those players who play simulation mode, ONLY play simulation mode. And most of them don´t play many more videogames really. There are more CUSTOM player designed events in SIMULATOR mode than any other; arcade players are not a really active part of the community, and realistic players don´t bother. 

 

Take for instance this very forum. When the surveys came out about buddy rally. there was a "parallel" survey in the forum. And the result was more negative here than it was in the "official" survey. Why? well, for the same reason. People who are "engaged" with SQUAD and a specific gameplay are more active because it´s the way they do things when they find something they like. Many "casuals" voted in those surveys, and gave a positive result to buddy rally, and I´m pretty sure that many of them never posted in this forum, never read it, and probably don´t really play the game anymore.

 

Bottomline, you are fatalistic and pessimistic and although I agree with some of your points, I´m not that pessimistic. In this, and other hobbies, I´ve experienced what passionate people are able and willing to do. That´s Why I think your calculations are correct, but only for casual or semi-casual gamers. All you need for a custom server to succced is a CORE of hardcore passionate players that doesn´t really need too big. 

 

 

Edited by Nightingale87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nightingale87 said:

Bottomline,  you are fatalistic and pessimistic and although I agree with some of your points, I´m not that pessimistic.

I'm neither. I'm simply pragmatic considering I've got an entire bookcase filled with pretty much every boxed game ever made in the genre and then some. In my experience the lifecycle of a game like Squad typically is 3-4 years. I'm pretty sure that most people that are familiar with the game either own it by now, know about it and don't want it or have purchased it and have already refunded it.

Quote

In this, and other hobbies, I´ve experienced what passionate people are able and willing to do. That´s Why I think your calculations are correct, but only for casual or semi-casual gamers. All you need for a custom server to succced is a CORE of hardcore passionate players that doesn´t really need too big. 

 

 

I seriously doubt that. I've seen it time and time again in PvP fps games over and over and over. The next big game comes along and makes the old one obsolete and player number drop and soon the plug gets pulled on the master authentication server then you can't even play the game especially if it doesn't have LAN support.

 

People from every part of the community are fatigued with a game that was supposed to be finished in "12-24 months" after the Steam Early Release of Q4 2015. Once the casual vanilla population as you call them starts dwindling then all the hard work and effort put into making your PR mod will be wasted.

 

Personally I think that you and all the other "PR Purists" who make a special point of telling the rest of us over and over how you refuse to play the game until it becomes the PR clone you believe you were promised are the real pessimist's and fatalist's.

 

Life is short, enjoy playing Squad with your friends just the way it is before it becomes obsolete and gets replaced by the next eye candy pew pew.

Edited by Zylfrax791
sure

Share this post


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

Life is short, enjoy playing Squad with your friends just the way it is before it becomes obsolete and gets replaced by the next eye candy pew pew.

Maybe we can all agree on this.

 

I certainly enjoy the game, regardless of whether or not it fits my exact wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

when fireteams stop being designed just to put marks on the map, start to be what they really should, we will know that the community begins to mature

Share this post


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

I seriously doubt that. I've seen it time and time again in PvP fps games over and over and over. The next big game comes along and makes the old one obsolete and player number drop and soon the plug gets pulled on the master authentication server then you can't even play the game especially if it doesn't have LAN support.

I think you didn´t get the point. All those PvP fps games you mention are exaclty CASUAL games with CASUAL audience that will play the game CASUALLY and move to the next big colourful flashy thing very quickly. Precisely the opposite of the kind of gamer that supports ARMA (1, 2, 3) DCS, and PR, e.g.

 

Again, you seem to think every gamer is the same. And that they wouldnt back their hobby economically. But that doesnt explain the existance of some of the mention games.

 

9 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

People from every part of the community are fatigued with a game that was supposed to be finished in "12-24 months" after the Steam Early Release of Q4 2015. Once the casual vanilla population as you call them starts dwindling then all the hard work and effort put into making your PR mod will be wasted.

I agree with that. Still, the point still stands. The casuals who get the same enjoyment from SQUAD and from COD, and BF, and insurgency, will or have already moved to the next thing.

 

The people who get a special enjoyment from something that trully requires teamwirk and is not pew-pew all the time are still around and will be around while this is the only hope for a new generation FPS game with the gameplay they like.

 

9 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Personally I think that you and all the other "PR Purists" who make a special point of telling the rest of us over and over how you refuse to play the game until it becomes the PR clone you believe you were promised are the real pessimist's and fatalist's.

Lol, this is a cheap intent to be offensive and I think you ignore many aspects of it as you were never a part of the PR community.

 

9 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Life is short, enjoy playing Squad with your friends just the way it is before it becomes obsolete and gets replaced by the next eye candy pew pew.

This is just the repetition of all your logic. You just think that all gamers are the same so you stick to your logic. And you come with the same conclusión.

 

You basically think that a COD player has the same gaming habits and the same gaming "Budget" than an ARMA player. Thus you asume that the life cycle of games like COD is the same as ARMA. Still, reality shows the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, they should remove hud marking entirely and all fireteam leader marking. Only the squad leader should be giving fireteams attack markers, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the aspects of the game becoming gamey and meta is that with this new addition of RAAS, certain players are already predicting the next caps at a high rate, almost ruining what the point of the mode was.  They need to have alot of variations for every map.  Just played over the past few days and there were people sitting at our 2nd and 3rd caps, within 10 minutes of match start.  Which means their already guessing the caps accurately and rushing them, which makes the reason this mode was invented in the first place worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m pretty sure a group off ppl are going to get feed up with the status quo and create a “Project Reality MOD” for Squad. Squad casualness is not going away, devs have been quite clear on that front.

 

If you have any hope left, on Squad getting its core PR roots back, that hope has been patched out, long time ago. :)

 

All we can do is to create our own realism "PR mod" and use squad as a template!

Edited by BatSithCrazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 5:22 AM, ZXD_Lee said:

Yeah I find vehicles way way too easy!!! They should be hard to master! Manual gears should be a thing in some vehicle  that actually would be manual, vehicles should take damage when you crash them and they should definitely cost much more tickets!!!! the new meta is to just crash your helicopter into another because only 5 tickets and it denies them a potential fob if it was 20 would this be less of a thing!! 

No matter what their ticket cost is kamikaze helicopters will still be a thing, because it is an even trade in tickets.  So, as long as the enemy helo was loaded with a squad trying to make a FOB somewhere, crashing into it with an empty helo is a win for you.

 

A cooldown period where you can't claim a helo after you lose one would be a better deterrence.  Frankly, I kind of like the idea of the cooldown periods.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make vehicles purchasable at Main for its supply and ammo cost, with a timer for arrival after purchase. Give Main limited supply, ammo, and tickets at round start. Remove ticket bleed from capturing objectives and add a supply and ammo regeneration at Main for holding points. This would more viscerally reinforce a vehicle's value as a shared team resource, and provide a less gamey mechanism for gaining advantage by allowing the winning team to field more vehicles and FOBs (as opposed to simply eating away at enemy tickets). Vehicle purchase would also increase the variety of tactics seen in the game as opposed to the layer-dependent vehicle sets, and would cut down on stale meta gameplay. You could make vehicles purchasable by Commander, or by SLs with a vote to approve the purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
On 1/11/2020 at 2:13 PM, pinko said:

Make vehicles purchasable at Main for its supply and ammo cost, with a timer for arrival after purchase. 

We have spitballed some ideas like this internally, especially with an eye on more FOB-buildings. I can't say that's gone beyond that point yet, but we do like where your head is at, hehe.

I believe some folks in the modding community have started experimenting with some vehicle spawning stations in-game, especially for training, so we may yet see it evolve there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 4:20 PM, Nightingale87 said:

First of all there are 3 options and you only adressed one: Modding. You haven´t commented on Different game mode supported within the game and / or server settings. So I´ll talk mostly about that.

 

 

If modding is such a panacea then make modding give you the casual gameplay for everyone while vanilla gameplay cater to the original backers of kickstarter.   As it already does with casual gamemodes like Space Crew and Troopers.

Problem solved.

Edited by EcchiRevenge

Share this post


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

If modding is such a panacea then make modding give you the casual gameplay for everyone while vanilla gameplay cater to the original backers of kickstarter.   As it already does with casual gamemodes like Space Crew and Troopers.

I think you got lost in translation.

 

The answer is ...YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shooting's too easy. This makes anything from individual machine gunners in a squad to emplacement HMG to HMGs on wheels effectively useless. You literally have to displace after a burst to not get sniped by anything above a pistol.

 

Then there is the HAB vs. HAB meta. Maybe with commanders, we can limit number of HABs per team? I am just sick of many matches becoming glorified BF match except you die more.

 

Newest mode, territory control seems to be made for constant combat, which the game seems to have embraced generally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 2:45 AM, pigsoup said:

 

Shooting's too easy. This makes anything from individual machine gunners in a squad to emplacement HMG to HMGs on wheels effectively useless. You literally have to displace after a burst to not get sniped by anything above a pistol.

 

Then there is the HAB vs. HAB meta. Maybe with commanders, we can limit number of HABs per team? I am just sick of many matches becoming glorified BF match except you die more.

 

Newest mode, territory control seems to be made for constant combat, which the game seems to have embraced generally. 

Sooooooo right soo ****ing right.

And i do not like the way is going.Thats the reason i am not playing Battlefield since the third one its getting more and more arcade not to mention hacking game exploits and so on and so on and the worst part no one was doing anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2020-01-17 at 1:54 PM, Gatzby said:

We have spitballed some ideas like this internally, especially with an eye on more FOB-buildings. I can't say that's gone beyond that point yet, but we do like where your head is at, hehe.

I believe some folks in the modding community have started experimenting with some vehicle spawning stations in-game, especially for training, so we may yet see it evolve there too.

Super! I think a lot of inspiration could be taken from RTS games in terms of game flow to address many of the issues mentioned here and elsewhere. In the update you guys mentioned possible Command Points (CP), or something to that effect, to be used in lieu of Commander ability cooldowns. Would love to see those tied into vehicle and supply acquisition as well. All assets in the game could be given a CP value for purchase and holding objectives could grant additional CP per minute, much like holding an expansion in an RTS. Was thinking along these lines for a mod anyway, but if you're taking ideas.. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to hear from veterans players!

 

I just purchased the game and thought it was "MILSIM" heavy 100 %.

It's interesting to hear that Squad was more punishing back in the day. I agree with the "gamey-ness" that is currently going on.

Squad Leaders just saying, "just push! If you die, just respawn at [X]." It does remove the realism out of the game.

 

I may be new to the game, but I do understand what you're saying OP. Thanks for the input.

 

-DG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people seem to like the new revival system - But tbh I'm not that big of a fan, I think it removed a lot of responsibility from the medic and has given players a safety net to do stupid risky stuff on the battlefield, it allows them to get greedy looking for kills without having proper consequences because they can just get picked up by whinging at a nearby teammate - It feels like it's contributed to the increased pace of matches massively and helped to turn matches into a bit of a cluttered mess

Edited by zombie326

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, zombie326 said:

Most people seem to like the new revival system - But tbh I'm not that big of a fan, I think it removed a lot of responsibility from the medic and has given players a safety net to do stupid risky stuff on the battlefield, it allows them to get greedy looking for kills without having proper consequences because they can just get picked up by whinging at a nearby teammate - It feels like it's contributed to the increased pace of matches massively and helped to turn matches into a bit of a cluttered mess

The reason for people playing wrecklessly is not the ability of everybody to revive, but the quickness with which they can be back in action immediately.

 

The proof of that is that many people don´t even wait to be revived. Not even by the regular rifleman that they have 10mts away. Furthermore, giving up is a VERY EFFECTIVE TACTIC; because the sooner you give up and respawn, the sooner you will be attacking and flanking the position where they shot you from and back on the cap.

 

Having everybody able to revive but only medics able to bring them up to full "combat effectiveness" is a great mechanic to keep the squad together. The problem is that all that is deluded in a meta that is only about running gunning, dying spawning repeating.

Share this post


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

The reason for people playing wrecklessly is not the ability of everybody to revive, but the quickness with which they can be back in action immediately.

 

The proof of that is that many people don´t even wait to be revived. Not even by the regular rifleman that they have 10mts away. Furthermore, giving up is a VERY EFFECTIVE TACTIC; because the sooner you give up and respawn, the sooner you will be attacking and flanking the position where they shot you from and back on the cap.

 

Having everybody able to revive but only medics able to bring them up to full "combat effectiveness" is a great mechanic to keep the squad together. The problem is that all that is deluded in a meta that is only about running gunning, dying spawning repeating.

 

It's a mixture of many things that is causing the increased pace - I agree the speed people can respawn and get back into action is a big factor in the pace of skirmishes, and if it took longer to get back into battle players would take a lot more care with what they're doing 

 

Tbh I think the only thing team revival is good for is a sense of teamwork and moral, and that's only if it's not some jerk whinging at teammates to come and pick him up in the middle of an open road only for them all to be gunned down - Half the time you may aswell save your bandage and just let the nearby medic pick them up, and if there's no nearby medic then there's no point in even picking them up unless you need another person in the capzone 

 

I think if it went back to the old revive system people would feel much less safe, it really does provide so much of a mental safety net - They would be much less willing to rush in and engage enemies 

 

The persistent ammo has also changed the distance FOB's are placed from the objective and inadvertently increased the pace -- Now that ammo is frequently required SL's tend to place their attacking FOB's way too close to the objective that they're attacking so that they can get quick access to ammo crates especially for LAT's and medics --- This creates messy battles with very little maneuvering because most of the squad would rather give up and spawn on the HAB and then run the shortest distance possible to the capzone to get back into the action and prevent the defending team from pushing onto this FOB that they've created

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

×