Kit Improvements - QoL and Teamplay
Knyx12
Member Posts: 7 Civilian
I just wanted to start this off with I am deeply impressed by the Squad developers at making a highly addictive multiplayer game and their continued devotion to Squad. Despite a few bugs here and there, the issues are generally minor.
I have been playing Squad pretty much since it was available for testing on Steam.
Given my experience and own personal opinion derived from that experience, the following are my suggested changes to certain roles/kits in Squad to offer more team cohesion capability, better balanced effectiveness, or are simply QoL.
1.) TOW and Kornet
I'm pushing the toughest nut to crack right off the bat. This one is tough because it is mostly balanced as a ATGM used for the very purpose of firing at ground-based vehicles. The imbalance is in its anti-air capabilities. It is far too easy to setup, and has a low skill floor in use, to be able to so easily pop helos out of the sky in a single shot. Now does it always one-shot helos? No, but that can easily be chalked up to hit-reg issues/lag.
The only possible suggestions here would either be to impose a severe limitation on how much the Tow can aim vertically, perhaps even limit it completely from being able to aim above a flat trajectory relative to where the TOW is emplaced. This would simply increase the skill required, at the very least, during placement. If you want to use it as an effective AA tool, you better place it up high if such elevation is even possible on your current map. The other suggestion would be a range limitation, just as long as it isn't so much that it noticeably effects its average capability in countering ground vehicles.
2.) Machine Gunner (Specialist)
The Machine Gunner is most certainly the least effective and therefore least picked Specialist role. The main differentiating factor the Machine Gunner should have over any of the Automatic Riflemen is first and foremost the round fired (i.e. more damage per round) whilst being balanced out by having even worse handling, requiring bipod deployment for any effective use. However, in many cases, the Machine-Gunner is not only lacking good optics, some are lacking optics entirely. Not only should ALL Machine-Gunner roles across all playable faction/armies have optics, it should be better than the Automatic Rifleman of the same faction/army. Additionally, to make it even a remotely worthy choice to be in the same slot as say... HAT.. it needs a little team benefitting boost. One way this can be achieved is by giving it a deployable ammo bag, similar to rifleman, except it cannot be picked up and it can only supply small-arms ammunition. This would also require more ammunition supply technically to fully stock up a MG player. So it is not without some logistical drawbacks.
3.) Marksman Kit <insert eye roll here>
Despite a common misconception and stigma regarding this kit, it does indeed have a much higher skill floor than most roles. It is simply in the fact of such elevated skill floor, and no real clear team-based role purpose, that so many people that pick this end up being worthless (or next to worthless). For the most part, despite the minor advantage (disregarding the massive disadvantages as well) that the extra magnification/optics provide for this kit, it is much easier to eliminate infantry targets even distant ones with a Rifleman (w/optics) for most playable factions/armies plus all of the other massive advantages Rifleman provides to the team over Marksman. Heck, I would be confident in the claim that even the LAT tube is better at eliminating most targets you'd imagine being the Marksman's primary target.
First step I would take in changing Marksman is to split it into 2 sub-kits, just like some others are (For example LAT). The limitations would remain the same, including 4 per team limit standard. In this case, 2 of each sub kit would be the limit per team.
The difference between these sub-kits would not be limited to simply optics vs no optics like the others. Sub-kit #1 would mirror the current Marksman role, except the primary rifle would be equipped with offset/canted iron-sights as well. This would be in addition to the current optics and the player can toggle between them at will. Sub-kit #2 would instead have optics which are an exact copy of the same faction/army Rifleman optics (e.g. Acog for US), no canted iron sights, and the primary rifle would be equipped with a suppressor. At the same time, all Marksman roles will automatically have the spotting capabilities of FTL baked in, without requiring the player to be designated FTL. The marker colors will be unique but also expire faster, and will be lacking move markers. This will at least give the Role a slight benefit to team cohesion. In cases where the Marksman is still designated as FTL, the current FTL markers would overwrite the Marksman specific ones from this suggestion.
For Canada, the only currently playable army with a Sniper Role instead of Marksman, would also have the spotting benefit baked in, but would not have any sub-kits. Additionally, for Canada's sniper and any future playable factions with the same/similar kit, I would also give it laser-rangefinder binoculars in place of simple binoculars. This further adds some semblance of a team-play element (and immersion) where the Sniper can range targets, not just for itself, but also for other kits like AT.
UK's standard, direct combat Marksman would be unchanged.
I would add the side note that most people need to stop picking the Marksman kit and thinking (and playing) like they are going to be a Call of Duty Lone-wolf assassin. If anything, you should spend more or at least equal time spotting and mentioning targets you spotted in comms as you do squeezing the trigger, and supporting your squad... not being off on your own.
4.) Combat Engineer
Combat Engineer is in a relatively good place and is generally a good pick. Again, here considering it occupies the Specialist role shared with HAT, all Combat Engineer primary rifles should be equipped with optics at the very least matching Rifleman of the same faction/army. Additionally, it should have sub-kits with the ability to choose between the AT mine (1 standard) and Claymore mines (2 standard) for USA/UK/Marines/Australia and POM/PFM/PMN mine for Russia/Militia/MEC. All Anti-Personnel mines would require remote detonation (similar/same mechanic as IED).
5.) Clipping / Originating model point for projectile sprite
Yes, still an issue since the beginning, but it has gotten a lot better. There are too many times, still, where an enemy soldier has 90%+ of his model behind solid cover except for maybe an elbow or the top half of his helmet and he is able to fire out/through with complete impunity. At the same time, when trying to hit this same player, only those same tiny parts of his model that are visible can be actually struck to damage/kill him. On the similar hand, on certain parts of terrain, when you are prone and should have a clear LoS, whilst ADS to engage and kill a target, your rounds disappear into the terrain right in front of you as if you are laying on your rifle and the barrel is actually pointed down into the dirt/rock. Perhaps this is not easy to articulate or even visualize if you have not experienced it. I will try to follow up with screenshots at a later date.
Thanks for reading.
Comments
1.) This post wasn't a request for suggestions or critique on how to play. Nice try though. The TOW range and velocity counters your claimed alternatives anyway.
2.) If it was overpowered, even remotely, it would be picked more. A specialist in no way should be limited to irons. The M240 is more accurate *when bipod is deployed* in game. However...Due to handling differences ( like recoil..), the M249 is far more accurate in practice when bipod is not deployed. I never claimed to want a "god kit" either, but nice strawman here as well.
3.) I would recommend becoming more knowledgeable about what skill floors are and how they are defined before arguing. Marksman is high skill floor for the very fact that people who can perform with the standard Rifle of their faction/army, cannot perform with the Marksman DMR substantiates such skill floor placement. Rifleman, LAT, Grenadier.... these are all examples of low skill floor as their ease of use is corroborated by offering effectiveness to a large swath of skill sets.
My suggestions give Marksman an actual team-cohesion element, and the split simply offers immersive player choices which it is otherwise lacking, and without such much as well share the same role placement as Rifleman. Do you want a suppressor, but lesser magnification optics..... or.... do you want higher magnification optics and the ability to still have some CQB capability with the off-set irons at the same time be easily heard when firing. The base capabilities of the weapon would be unchanged.
4.) Again, if they were so overpowered as you claim they would be picked more. Optics should be a standard option for kits who occupies support and specialist roles, especially for those who are not specifically AT focused. They should not be weaker at Rifleman (or anti infantry) duties than their AT counterparts.
5.) I am not talking about lean. I am talking about being prone on a generally flat surface, even a surface that lets you deploy a bipod in some cases (full barrel clearance), and the rounds are striking the ground below the barrel.
Other games where I have experienced this was simply due to the originating point for the projectile sprite, as in the "bullet" manifesting point when you fire wasn't from the end of the barrel as logic would assume, but actually more like mid-sternum of your player model. In some of those cases, it could have been simply an engine limitation.
So both situations still occur in game. Situations where users who have absolute zero barrel clearance, and about 5-15% of their model actually visible (and strikable)... like an elbow... or the top of their helmet.... are able to shoot with impunity. The other situation is the opposite, where the user has complete barrel clearance, and a large chunk of their model is strikable, but are unable to fire (i.e. invisible wall or bad projectible sprite origination)
TOW and Kornet
I'm pushing the toughest nut to crack right off the bat. This one is tough because it is mostly balanced as a ATGM used for the very purpose of firing at ground-based vehicles. The imbalance is in its anti-air capabilities. It is far too easy to setup, and has a low skill floor in use, to be able to so easily pop helos out of the sky in a single shot. Now does it always one-shot helos? No, but that can easily be chalked up to hit-reg issues/lag.
Btw Skill ceiling is the maximum effectiveness when combined with highest skill and skill floor is the opposite of it - lowest effectiveness when combined with basically no (minimum) skill.
If you have problem with the definition then you're wrong and totally missed the context. (feel free to agree with the brainless masses, but they're wrong too)
1.) and yet I have no issue dropping just about every Helo is set my sights on when in TOW/Kornet.
2.) My experience is the opposite at over 1k hours.
3.) Simply copying my statement only substantiates your ignorance. Skill floor is the skill required to operate/utilize X at the average effectiveness. X with low skill floor equates to X requiring low skill to operate effectively.
Taken from multiple sites as I am unable to post links.
"A skill floor is the counterpart to a skill ceiling. A skill ceiling is the level of play that’s possible with training and mastery. A skill floor is a way of describing how difficult it is to begin the process of mastery"
"Skill floors, to start, are the bare minimum amount of skill with that game (or sub-category within the game, see class shooters ala TF2) to participate in the game effectively. This is the status quo that the developers have modeled the game around, and if you’re not good enough to meet this floor you’re going to have a hard time. This is the developers saying “you must be this tall to ride this ride.”
"In short, low skill floor characters are relatively easy to pick up to at least contribute something to the match. They have generally easy abilities to use in combat, hence even an average player can use these heroes effectively"
But please... keep repeating a refuted argument. Marksman is high skill floor.
4.) Out of all specialist role kits in any match at any given time in said match: HAT has the lowest probability of being available/unpicked. Combat Engie has the second lowest. Machine gunner has the highest probability of being available/unpicked even if unavailable.
"In reality..." Is just another fallacy. This is still first and foremost a game. You cannot revive people with a bandage "in reality". You cannot magically spawn a clone (Planetside anyone?) just because you built a HAB in "reality". I could go on for days.
5.) I am the author of the OP. You were arguing the point I made in the OP. Even with your clear incapability at coherently articulating such differences, you are still openly admitting to committing a Strawman. Nice job.
I'm going to argue the TOW is exactly fine in regards to its anti air capabilities. I fly consistently in-game and you have to be a pretty situationally unaware/incompetent pilot to get shot down by a TOW more than once. Once they've been identified, which any good team will be able to do, it's a matter of choosing your flight path intelligently.
Not to mention there exists no counter for helicopters among conventional factions and helicopters are already super tanky in general.
I'd also argue marksman that marksman doesn't really have a higher skill floor than the rest of the classes. I think if anything, it's a crutch class. New players will pick it and maybe see enemies better with the optic, but it's really just a useless class for 99% of games and is better off replaced by a scoped rifleman.
1.) Then I guess 90% of the pilots I have faced in all of my hours are unaware/incompetent. Sounds like the Skill floor requirements for Helo piloting is incompatible with the vast majority of Squad players, including the sub-set that flies often. That in of itself signals something needs to be fixed.
2.) There are plenty of counters. You seem to think "Counter" is limited to "Hard Counter".
3.) Your last argument is circular and nonsensical. "Useless", is completely subjective in this case. Which is a fairly common label from those who are incapable of meeting the skill requirements of X. In fact, it is very common that higher skill floor archetypes in gaming are designed to be more "niche" or "situational" in a way. The "jack of all trades, master of none" is typically consistent with low skill floor as a descriptor. The rifleman is better off in most circumstances because the skill floor is much lower. "Most" here being significant, as if the amount of situations described here being too extreme, this can just as easily signal one or the other being imbalanced (e.g. Marksman needing some buffs or Rifleman needing some nerfs).
Yes, it sounds like most pilots you encounter are incompetent, and having most pilots being filtered out is a good thing. There actually exists a high skill floor AND ceiling for piloting, unlike marksman, and most players won't reach it. There really aren't plenty of counters for a good pilot.
And yes, marksman is mostly a useless class, not subjective at all. In most any situation, it's almost always better to pick another kit. There really isn't any higher skill floor for marksmen than other classes. Their weapons are easier to control with bipods and they do more damage for the most part.
I could see an argument that, because it's such a bad class, you need to be better at the game to use it well, but that doesn't do the class any favors or make it more desirable for better players, because it's such a low-impact role
The optimal marksman play style is basically a glorified optic rifleman, which translates into basically the same skill requirements, except bringing less to the table than his squadmates.
The rifleman is better the majority of the time not because of a lower skill floor, but because he provides utility to his team and can do the same job as a marksman if he's not a knuckledragger.
Marksman needs utility to make it useful to its team/squad.
1.) Again. There is such thing as a skill floor being too high. This in of itself is an imbalance. This is also assuming this is where the imbalance lies, and not the TOW/KORNET itself. If over a thousand hours of experience is not enough to come across at least a reasonable portion of pilots that are capable of defending themselves/avoiding TOW/KORNET placement... that alone signals an issue.
2.) That is subjective.. and if you are viewing it from a Call-of-Duty kills are everything mindset, then yes. I can see how it would appear useless. It is possibly underpowered? Sure. In Squad, spotting is just as important, if not much more important than lethality. Having better optics allow the user, whatever weapon they are applied to, spot enemies further out (obv map dependent) at the cost of CQB capability, awareness included. Even discounting the optic, the Rifle itself differs from the Rifleman. It is limited to semi-automatic fire, the Rifleman is not. This alone dictates Marksman as higher skill floor by definition. Additionally, the Rifles assigned to all of the Rifleman kits have better weapon handling (lower recoil parameters, drift, etc) than the one assigned to Marksman. Again, another indication of Higher skill floor by definition. Same with hip fire accuracy, so on and so forth. Rifleman has less ammo constraints as well.... has access to grenades... all of which Marksman does not. These further substantiate that Rifleman is low skill floor and Marksman is not.
Now, on a per bullet basis, last I checked anyways... for all of the factions/playable armies... Marksman does more damage per bullet than any of the Rifleman and its not like the Marksman rifle have comparable semi-automatic rate of fire to the Rifleman either. This is indicative of higher skill ceiling by definition.
With all of this considered, I made my suggestions to simply buff the teamwork aiding element of the kit (i.e. utility) with the ability to place some spotting markers without needing FTL and some QoL improvement (like the sub kits) that may indirectly improve lethality based on skill, but not directly as the kit shows signs of being high skill floor and ceiling.
"Now, on a per bullet basis, last I checked anyways... for all of the factions/playable armies... Marksman does more damage per bullet than any of the Rifleman and its not like the Marksman rifle have comparable semi-automatic rate of fire to the Rifleman either. This is indicative of higher skill ceiling by definition."
This is hogwash as usual.
They all do two-shot torso(all relevant ranges) and 1 shot head(all ranges) so there is inherently higher skill ceiling for regular rifles as you can hit all torso shots and down enemies quicker with rifles on auto/burst or headshot at higher rate(due to generally lower recoil), exception being usmc's m38 but that's really an IQ test(if you pick it over m27 AR kit, you failed).