Skip to content

Loving the new Fob changes, consider going a step further.

Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

The new FOB changes are a breath of fresh air and I am disappointed that the community has had such a negative response to these changes. As for my feedback I, and many others would love if the devs doubled down on these changes and went a step further.

These changes are not as bad as you may think, and really helped remedy some of the problems we have with FOB spam and the meat grinder meta that has taken hold of Squad in the last two years. Below I am posting some changes I feel would fully solve these issues and create an overall better and more positive experience.

Starting with FOBs I’ll post my feedback below here. And maybe in another post I will touch on rallies and perhaps suppression. Please consider these changes and give them a chance. Read it over. Think about it. Also type in Realitymod.com in your web browser and consider hopping in PR for a few rounds to get the feel of what many in this community are missing and are yearning for.


Forward Operating Base (FOB): The forward operating base, also known as a forward outpost serves as a defensive spawn position for the team. It comes online 90 seconds after being build. It becomes unspawnable for 30 seconds if 1 enemy is within 10m, 2 enemies within 50m, 4 enemies within 100m or 8 enemies within 150m. Requirements and limitations:


Must be constructed within 50m of a friendly large supply crate.

The team may have a total of 6 forward outposts at the same time.

Must be constructed at least 200m from other forward outposts and the team's HQ.

Must be constructed at least 10m away from the map border (200m on CNC).


Hideout: Insurgents use hideouts as a spawn location. If 2 or more enemies are close by (within 50m), spawning is disabled until 90 seconds after they leave or die. Requirements and limitations:


Requested further than 200m from the closest hideout and the insurgent HQ.

The team may have up to 6 hideouts at the same time.

Must be constructed at least 10m away from the map border.


Yes indeed. I posted this straight from the manual of PR. You know why? Because these gameplay design elements worked and fostered an experience rival to none. An experience Squad, despite being a “spiritual successor”, has failed to capture. Again. I’m disappointed in the community responding so negatively to the changes and hope the vets, casuals, and comps and come to some sort of middle ground with the changes I have posted above. I personally would love these changes to be implemented fully but understand we have a lot of differing opinions on the matter. This is my 2 cents. Feel free to respond with what you think would be better changes or if you agree with my sentiment.

Comments

  • WeenWeen Member Posts: 4

    I whole heartedly disagree.


    The changes to the proxy distance will ruin competitive play for this game. When a HAB is identified, a squad can easily move within 80m and just sit and hold corners. When the defending team reacts, they will be forced to spread out even further than usual to sweep the proxy. Defenders are usually forced to search in small teams, and scout the proxy radius swiftly, since we all know time is of the essence when restoring a HAB.

    This makes it more likely, even inevitable, that the defenders will be outnumbered as they encounter the 8 man attacking squad, leading to an even bigger advantage for the attacker. This advantage is gained by playing passively and indirectly. A smart attacking squad would then be able to remove the defenders in detail because of the space the defenders have to cover in order to find them.

    Maintaining spawns becomes nearly an impossible task. This means that the attacking squad does not have to remain on the offensive. They can easily take out an enemy position by lurking within a 160m diameter circle that the defenders now have to sweep, under fire, in order to save. You are incentivizing bush wookieing, while disincentivizing a coordinated push into the enemy's gut. It is clear that the majority of players disapprove of this change. This change may very well lead to the death of competitive play in this game


    As for the exclusion radius: this change is not game breaking on it's own, and does achieve the desired affect of forcing squads to maneuver in field rather than just attacking off of a HAB. However, most of the players in this game do not opt for long flanking runs. The average player doesnt want to run for 15 minutes to establish a wide flank and fight off a rally, only to be killed half way and have to make the run again. The result is that a lot of games have begun to degrade into everyone spawning off the same HAB and running straight at a POI. The battlefield has become much more linear and predictable.

    The change has made the blueberries look even more like lemmings running off a cliff than they did previously. The resulting linear battle, adversely to the intent, seems to have increased the number of lone wolfers who are sick of following a headlong attack with the rest of the team.

    The worst effect it has is to exacerbate the issues with the proxy distances. We are allowed fewer HABs, which are now much easier to disable.


    These two changes, while I understand the intent, have introduced even worse game meta than what they were intended to remedy.


    My suggestion is that the proxy distance is reverted and the FOB exclusion zone remain. This will force squads to maneuver across further distance, while not leaving the HABs overly vulnerable to long distance proxying.


    I love the game, and I love playing Comp, but the comp side of the game is going to be killed by these updates. And the pub servers produce less dynamic games. At the very least, please release comp map packs/layers that keep the old HAB mechanics.

  • BonkyBonky Member Posts: 1 Civilian

    I agree with the title, we need to go further. Ideally, there should be a limit of 1 hab per team, and if it's taken down, it's gone forever. This will simultaneously encourage greater realism and waste a lot of people's time. Win/win.

    Also, I typed in "Realitymod.com" to my browser and now I have a virus. Thanks a lot, jerk! My computer demands I send Bitcoin to "[email protected]" or they will publish my hours in Squad. I could not bear the shame, therefore I am contemplating suicide as I can not afford Bitcoin. Please pm me to donate Bitcoin, thank you in advance.

  • 3S_Moe3S_Moe Member Posts: 26 ★★

    I completely disagree with the original poster. This change has increased FOB spam because taking down fobs is so easy now. Last night I decided to just be a logi driver in my own locked squad (as the rules allowed for it) and I simply drove all around the map and met other SL's and we dropped fob after fob all over the map. One HAB and one Ammo crate, 600 build in total, plus I dropped a bit of ammo and then I moved on. We must have placed between 8 to 10 fobs on the map, and we dominated the game. Next game, same tactic, same result. We didn't spend more than 3 minutes putting up a fob, we didn't build any extra emplacements, no fortifications because the cost/time to build is just a waste. We did this for 3 games in a row and absolutely destroyed the other team.


    The team that places the most amount of fobs on the map typically wins. Nothing else in the game is as powerful as a logi truck filled with 2400 build points and 600 ammo to put up 4 fobs with one ammo crate and drop a touch of ammo on the radio. Once a fob is actually up, it's cake to come back and drop more ammo on it as it doesn't require anyone else. Plus, other vehicles/choppers can dump ammo, and you don't need to be anywhere near the radio to do it which means it can be a low risk action. The only thing more powerful than a logi is a good helicopter pilot that will drop the same fobs even quicker all over the map.

  • 3S_Moe3S_Moe Member Posts: 26 ★★

    Instead of limiting the system to 1 fob per map, one not design a system that encourages fobs to be built up and defended (because you actually can,) thus making the idea (or cost) of placing fobs all over the map a lot less enticing? In other words, make building things to defend the fob cost less and work better for defense, and be quicker to build, and make the build cost of the fob more expensive.

  • RB79BALLRB79BALL Member Posts: 5 Civilian

    This comment is solely based on putting the radio at the point and defending the point by pumping soldiers from there. It has indicated that you are not adapting to the change, You DON'T have the build your HAB in the point. It is a 2kmx2km map where you can build further away from the capturing point and funnel your units to the point from the HAB.

    Since one side is streaming people from the HAB to the point, sneaking to the HAB is much more difficult and the human train who are going towards the point can always turn around and out number the small HAB hunting detachment to recover the HAB, with a cost of potentially weakening the defense of the point. It is more decision for an SL even commander to make. Deal with it.

    I don't like playing HAB turkey shoot and body piling around the HAB. It is a boring gameplay that the term "slugfest" captures much of it.

  • WeenWeen Member Posts: 4

    Lol You are assuming one hell of a lot based on a few points, there bucko. Coming in hot are we? You also missed the point. The point is not the FOB exclusion zone. The issue is that it it is too easy to take down. Let's not jump straight to assuming I play like a potato because our opinion differs. We both clearly put a lot of effort toward the game just by the fact that we're posting here.

    My comment on the linear combat was actually based on playing several PUB matches on smaller maps, watching all the initial HABS go down (presumably because they are too easy to proxy) and the battle then degrades to a linear fight.

    My overall comment and points, if you'll go back and read between the lines a bit more, are based around how these changes will affect COMP play. The proxy distance will destroy comp play, which relies on a ballance between attacking and defending spawn points. And this swings the advantage heavily toward the attacking squads based on how well they can hide. Not how well they can maneuver, bound, shoot. I spend most of my time playing on the competitive side of the game, so my issues with the changes are largely biased toward that.

    The HAB exclusion is a minor annoyance that can be strategized around. The proxy distance change breaks a CRUTIAL ballance characteristic. It will make defending a HAB next to impossible when playing 20v20. I'd be happy to explain how, but I think you can probably see how. And I dont really want to type more.

    At the very least I want comp specific layers that use the old metrics. You can keep loving your shiny new HABs in your servers, and I can play a better version of squad on mine. ; p

  • RB79BALLRB79BALL Member Posts: 5 Civilian

    You and your clan can mod the game yourselves to your liking.

    "watching all the initial HABS go down (presumably because they are too easy to proxy) and the battle then degrades to a linear fight."

    It sounds more like a map design problem where players has no other good spots to place their HAB, but is it? From what I observe, more server has no one defending a point and the whole team charge into attack and lost the game. The major population still haven't manage to figure where to place them to avoid enemy sneaking in.

    "swings the advantage heavily toward the attacking squads based on how well they can hide."

    Yes, attacking squad should make their entry with at least 2 direction of approach, if the defending team don't put up a defend on a direction, it is their fault for failure. On another hand, I do not agree HAB should be taken down that easily. It should be a specific task by a C4 instead of a shovel, but it should still keep the proxy disabling function.

    "It will make defending a HAB next to impossible when playing 20v20"

    Is this game is not design for small map with small server population? An F1 formula race car is a race car with 4 wheels, but you can't bend it to complete in a rally match with all the difficult terrain. I believe you can understand the comparison.

    SQUAD has always been designed for large maps (7.5km^2) with combine arms warfare.

  • WeenWeen Member Posts: 4

    To say this game doesnt function at lower pops is just not true. Is it safe to assume, then, that you have never played on the comp side of the game? Because the racecar comparison is more than a stretch. It just doesn't fit. The game worked really well for lower pops the way it was set up. To validate that, I'm currently playing in the Squad Masters tournament. A 20v20 world's tournament run in part by OWI themselves. So are you saying that the crew chief himself sent this f1 car onto a dirt track?...

    Playing the game at smaller pops is not like driving an F1 car offroad. If I'm going to follow your analogy, its like having an F1 race with only 4 cars on the track. The level of precision required to hit your corners just right is heightened. There is less room for error because the track isnt full of other cars. Once a car is jockeying for position, every mistake is amplified because there are no other variables in play but the skill of the two drivers. This change is like taking a wheel off the lead car every time someone gets into first place. It's going to be overtaken.

    "if the defending team don't put up a defend on a direction, it is their fault for failure." - I thought you would infer what I meant but I see I have to type it all out.

    You cant afford to set up a stallworth defense on every HAB in a 20v20. Or even a 36v36. The issue is that defenders HAVE to maintain area control. That means their spacing has to be wide. Which was previously doable, because the ATTACKERS had to ATTACK. Attackers dont have that same pressure of area control. They can concentrate their force onto a single flank, like a dagger into the liver. Now imagine you are defending a spawn point and you have to sweep the HAB for the proxying enemies. You and one MAYBE two other people are patrolling the 160m diameter circle around your hab. The proxying squad is hunkered into a building, which maybeven be out of line of sight to the hab. You as the DEFENDER are now forced to expose yourself and seek out the enemy over long distances. If you and your two or three man detachment do happen upon the attackers, the attackers will outnumber you, have entrenched positions, and have the ability to wait motionless until the DEFENDERS are move in and expose themselves. Do you see how this reverses the rolls? The attackers seem to have a lot of the luxuries that should be afforded the defenders, right? Now once the contact is made, the outnumbered defenders will lose 4/5 times and now the attackers have swayed the fight even further in their advantage because the people they drop cannot respawnin in a position to even the numbers back up. Each firefight thereafter is further tipped toward the attack. That is a problem. The attackers should not be allowed to play passively and still be effective. If the proxy is going to be that far out, the defenders should be tipped off as to what direction the proxy is coming from to even the playing field. But that is a worse fix than just reverting back to what worked...

    For all your naysaying about my posts, I have yet to see you counter any of my points. You have just dismissed my points by insulting my adaptability, or dismissed my experiences and concerns based on YOUR subjective experience with the game. You seem to be arguing just to argue. So let me ask you this: why do you think these changes have IMROVED game play. What do you feel the affects have been and what did it fix? And what is your issue with how the proxy distance functioned previously?

Sign In or Register to comment.