Skip to content

No need to reinvent the wheel - a Vets opinion on SQUADS Meta changes and where its headed.

Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

Taken from the Squad Reddit and originally posted by longtime vet of the community Wehman. Thought I’d share ha Reddit post here for further feedback and discussion.


No need to reinvent the wheel. Project Reality has already fine tuned the most immersive and teamwork oriented Infantry experience on offer due to the very specific gameplay mechanics it has hammered out over the years. These balances specifically encourage each and every player to work as a teammate and to treat each life as important, something FPS games have a difficult time doing, especially in a Public server context. See below:

Rally Point -Need to have 2 squad members close to you. Enemy is further than 50m away on1x1km maps or 125m or 2x2km and 4x4km maps.

-The rally point automatically disappears after 60 seconds unless: It is within 2x large map grid squares of a friendly FOB It is within 2x large map grid squares of a friendly APC or IFV. Only those of which you can request kits.

-An enemy that comes within 50m on 1x1km maps or 125m or 2x2km and 4x4km maps from the rally point will disable it. On larger maps it is 600m.

-A rally point rearms every 1 minute. Unless it has become overrun. In which case you need to wait 5 minutes.

FOBS: 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.

Giveups/Revive/Ticket loss

A player loses -1 ticket for being wounded and placed in the wounded or incapacitated state. This further encourages players to take care with their life if they dont want to needlessly lose tickets even if they have a medic or teammate nearby.

A player loses an additional -1 ticket for giving up when in the wounded state, for a total of -2 tickets for being shot and killed. This very basic change again stems from SQUADS predecessor PR and solves the problem of players not waiting for a revive and taking advantage of their entire bleed out time when incapacitated.

-Maps would obviously need a look at their base ticket values and im sure some slight testing would need to take place to get the right balance, but a change in this direction would further set SQUAD down the right path. Its my humble opinion that the competitive scence that SQUAD currently enjoys would actually approve of and thrive with the changes I've noted above, as planning, teamwork and communication become paramount to success.

These ideas are all taken from SQUAD's predecessor Project Reality and have been fine tuned and proven to promote the best communication and teamwork. The limitions and strengths of FOBS in PR are balanced very specifically by the limitations and strengths of Rally points. The end result is a system that rewards the squad that is most prepared, working together and communicating, whether its defending a location or attacking one.

Comments

  • RackEmUp187RackEmUp187 Member Posts: 34

    The OP Wehmann want sthis to be a PR copy and paste, which this isn't. Squad was first designed as a more infantry based game that later incorporated vehicles into the game later on.

    I took the counter arguments from someone who broke it down against his points:

    "Need to have 2 squad members close to you" - Sure.

    "125m or 2x2km and 4x4km maps" - Big maps are inherently walking simulators as is. At any rate, SL's should place rallies close enough to the fight but far enough to avoid losing it (which usually translates into distances of 100-300m as is). Overall, losing a rally due to 125m wipe-radius lowers the amount of possible spawns.

    "The rally point automatically disappears after 60 seconds" - This lowers the amount of possible spawns as well.

    "unless: It is within 2x large map grid squares of a friendly FOB It is within 2x large map grid squares of a friendly APC or IFV" - At which point the rally will only act as a secondary spawn for defending a FOB in most circumstances or risk signalling to the enemy team that a FOB is nearby. Relying on vehicles to maintain rally points effectively limits their potential and redirects their focus away from dealing with enemy armour.

    "On larger maps it is 600m" - Is this a typo?

    "In which case you need to wait 5 minutes" - Lowers the amount of possible spawns.

    "It comes online 90 seconds after being build" - It takes the enemy just as long to push towards the sound of logi/heli if it's an attack HAB. By the time you get to spawn in, your HAB is proxied or heavily contested unless you build it at too large a distance away from the objective.

    "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" - All it takes is for people to snake and afk in a bush far from the HAB to effectively limit an entire team's potential at playing off of respective HABs.

    "team may have a total of 6 forward outposts at the same time" - Sure.

    "Must be constructed at least 200m from other forward outposts and the team's HQ" - Range is way too short for bigger maps if you also limit the amount to 6. Also limits the potential of dropping attack HABs on flanks or nearby uncapable enemy flags that can be utilised to snowball defenders later on.

    "A player loses an additional -1 ticket for giving up when in the wounded state, for a total of -2 tickets for being shot and killed" - K/D will become even more dominant in dictating the eventual outcome of games.

    ---

    The way I see it, these changes would reduce a round to only a few engagements as spawns become limited, less efficient and easier to disable. Furthermore, this increases the overall down-time due to the lack of meaningful spawn points which in turn lowers the action experienced per minute played."

  • tzaerutzaeru Member Posts: 27

    Personally very much not a fan of making it take even longer to get into firefights and stuff.

    I want to shoot stuff, not walk several minutes to get into the proximity of a potential fight.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    Well that wasn’t the main goal of squad. It wasn’t ever meant to be a fast paced shooter like CS:GO as you had mentioned in your other post on the other thread. Try out project reality it wasn’t that long to get into a firefight and once you did it was really refreshing. When you and your mates wiped a squad it felt rewarding because it was hard to do. Suppression, the fob mechanics and rally mechanics in addition to the plethora of lovely maps all culminated into this rewarding experience that squad lacks because of how fast paced it is and how it has deviated so much from the original vision.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    Not to mention the game modes were fully fleshed out. Insurgency was really fun to play because as insurgents you really had to fight as guerrillas versus a more technologically advanced blufor faction. It was never easy for blufor either. Ramiel insurgency (black hawk down map) for example I have seen blufor lose countless times against the African resistance fighters. Strykers had thermals, FOB placement was careful and planned, CAS was available and even still the ARF could own the more advanced faction. That’s just one example with insurgency. Taking a cache was not easy. Where as the few times I played insurgency in squad you could Rambo your way in with little to no consequences and be able to drop a thermite grenade on a cache as SL. I’ve lived that personally in Squad. I’m kind of rambling again but there is so many different variables to PR that culminated this desired experience. Yes it was a bit more slowed down but it was a rewarding experience that is hard to explain in one single post. It was grounded and rewarded the team with the better strategy. Not to say the firefights didn’t matter but there were times you could suppress the enemy and end up with kills. It felt like a realistic representation of a firefight versus individual gun battles using these lazer beam ballistics present in squad.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    If you just want to shoot stuff there are many other games that do that and do that well such as insurgency sandstorm. Where as squad was supposed to be a spiritual successor and not in name only.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    Not telling you how to play or anything or to play another game. Don’t think I’m saying that play how you want but I’m just shedding light on the original goal of the game.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    Comment spam I have 1 more comment

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    In PR you also did have some fast paced moments. Usually on the smaller maps such as Fallujah west or Muttrah. Clearing a building while half of your squad was dead outside and the other half got killed inside was exhilarating. Even if you died and took a few with you it was so much fun. There were even times you may end up almost wiping a squad yourself and feeling like a bad ****. Assad Khal is another great example of a map that was more fast paced.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    Also don’t think that PR was all slow and methodical 100 percent of the time because it wasn’t. Take smaller maps like Fallujah west or Muttrah for example. Clearing a building while half your squad is dead outside and the other half was dead inside was exhilarating. Even if you died and took a few with you. There were even times you might single handedly wipe a squad yourself and it was just amazing because of how hard that was to do. Take Assad Khal for example. IDF versus Hamas on that map was a brutal slug fest that depended on the right amount of speed and coordination to get across the river and foot bridge.

    If the Hamas was able to gain a foothold in the little foot hills (no pun intended) it was a brutal assault for the IDF and turned into a rewarding stalemate as you tried to cross the River with speed and cohesion. So don’t think PR was all slow movements with tactical control measures while a commander yelling at all the squads to do as he says. Because there were and are times where the commander is ignored same as in squad. Instead the squads work with one another in that event and still have a tremendous rewarding experience.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    It also wasn’t “milsim” PR bridged the gap between battlefield and Arma 2 at the time and was 100 percent jump in and play.

  • crazycowcrazycow Member Posts: 6 Civilian

    You're just writing down memorable moments from PR gameplay and saying that squad should be like that without any mention of game mechanics or how you would change squad to achieve that vision. Maybe instead of telling people that they should play a different game, you should return to playing PR, as from your recollection it seems to be a perfect military FPS.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    I made my own post dedicated to PR mechanics. You should read it. These aren’t just memorable moments it’s how the game played and is what is missing from Squad. The rose tinted glasses counter arguments are getting old. Fond memories do not discredit what is being said by me and many other longtime vets.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    I’m fully advocating for PR2 at this point. 1:1 carbon copy for the most part.

  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian
  • Teebird38Teebird38 Member Posts: 23 Civilian

    At the end of the day original backers mostly wanted PR2 with updated graphics.

  • RB79BALLRB79BALL Member Posts: 5 Civilian

    Not just that. Expecting more factions and maps too.

  • RackEmUp187RackEmUp187 Member Posts: 34

    Look, we are living in the present and. It the past. Squad has changed since alpha and it has changed to help cater the new and current players who are the sole focus. All the PR vets most likely went back to PR, quit or are dealing with the new changes of squad.

    At the end of the day this is Squad and not PR. Multiple back to back posts isn't really going to help change how Squad plays. OP already had a ton of dislikes on his reddit post from other players which isn't what some of the community wants to see.

  • tzaerutzaeru Member Posts: 27

    I like Squad's aesthetics, team communications, and the combination of vehicle and infantry gameplay.

    But yes shooting stuff is still the main reason I play the game. Squad's already significantly slower than the mainstream modern warfare shooter games. I don't see a reason for it to be even slower.

    That said, one thing I would side with is somehow reducing the impact of the rollout and mid-rush meta. Too many games are lost in the first 15 minutes, yet end up taking 45 minutes to actually finish them.

Sign In or Register to comment.