Tend to agree.
Full agree. Many weapons are actually great but you just don’t have time to use them (like grenade launcher).
(Shameless self advertising:)
That kind of thing should be a norm, not “oh, I finally managed to use it”.
i agree but regarding the player numbers (that’s why i’m here and not there) they have less appeal to the great public. To all the fast pace fans: in the beginning it’s fun but in the long run it gets boring and you look for more depth, which can come from a more tactical approach, which in turn needs a slower game pace in order to make sense.
The problem I see is, that in a game for long time players, newbies will get crushed and won’t stay.
The problem may be solved by two game modes: one for beginners with easier rules and the same pace like it has now and a slower one for the more advanced guys with more realistic rules. One may say that the lone fighter mode is the later one and this makes sense to me. On the other hand I still long for the unexplored possibilities of the squads mode in a slower and smoother mode where the AI is able to execute more complex orders and stick to them.
1 Like
I take some friends of mine as a perfect example: they play BF 4, CoD, even CS and EVERY TIME they play it, it takes less than 20 minutes until their rage is high enough, that they could smash their PCs ngl.
I get what you say, but lets take WT as another example. You have those modes, BUT do people work better as a team? No they get better on an individual lvl, but not really as a team. Why? Because theyve already learned to play alone and forget about teammates. Same applies to BF4, or in some terms HLL / PS as well. The moment people get to know, they are more efficient / effective on their own, they wont change anything about it, because playing as a team CAN be frustrating (different lvls of game-knowledge). This can be seen in games like LoL as well and is quite much logical.
I would rather say: lone fighter mode is for CQC with much more players and squad mode is more much larger maps with AI, because AI is too bad in CQC. If you would slow down speed a bit, you could make CQC much more tactical as well, even with a much bigger amount of players. By doing this you reduce the overall effectiveness of a lonewolf because of higher numbers (the more players in a match the smaller impact one player will have on his own).
In Squad mode however teamplay is needed because of much larger areas (you have to control wider areas since you can be flanked / suppressed / attacked from anywhere).
I agree that low lvl players have to be seperated from high lvl players (just because of their equipment), or at least the highest players from the lowest players.
3 Likes
That would be fixed by letting you fire guns normally with grenade launchers attached, and instead just have a key to load rifle grenades on guns with such.
That said, my use for them is as a secondary weapon slot, it’s pretty much the only way to make rifle grenades worthwhile right now.
Problem is that it made the rifle inacurate, or something like that, I don’t remember. Anyway it was not advised.
Not all grenade discharging cups were shoot-through anyway.
If you’re going to allow shoot through you need to model unloading and loading the special blank cartridges.
That would make it even more time consuming → even more useless.
why not just allow 203s then?
could you explain what you mean?
M203 Grenade Launchers … google it …
1 Like
You lose the ability to see past the front post accurately on some guns, and led to some loss of spin stability, which leads to a significant decrease in accuracy past 100-150+ meters as bullets destabilize past that point and tumble. Still would be fine within the range before they destabilize.
Considering how close range things tend towards in game, I’d prefer the ability to use the gun and accept that the grenade launcher means a sharp damage and accuracy damage dropoff at long range.
I mean, for the Kar 98k you could have it so you single-load the grenade cartridge in the animation when you reload the grenades on it, the m1 Carbine would merely have a magazine reload between the firing modes, and the Dyakanov launcher for the Mosin-Nagant was shoot-through so… you’d just reload the grenades. All of which would be faster than the equipment swap animation it presently has going on.
I didnt say that the idea was bad per se. But in this game it simple cannot be implemented. Already there are matches that people stay back and dont push objectives making the game a horror to carry. Some times simply someone needs to rush an objective and sacrifice soldiers cause the rest of the team stays back. Discouraging this will just make games being a stalemate and boring. Dont forget that this game contrary to games like SQUAD, is based on random players trying to win a match. No actually squads of players (like squad) and also no communication exists
Pushing objectives and just rushing in to die, are two different things in my POV. Rushing in to die is the META right now, because as you mentioned, map control, securing vital positions and actually playing a (WW2) shooter as it should be and using the weaponry as it should be is uesless and losing you games easily. Promoting structured gameplay is producing more intense and prolonged fights. You dont even need communication you just need map awareness + pings. Even pinging is not done properly today. Games like squad / PS / HLL is based on random players as well (especially without mics) and they work quite fine (with ups / downs ofc).
Right now the game, even for a more arcady game is lacking structure. Its just a meanless meatgrinder with quite much 0 teamplay / tactics or anything else besides running in, shooting some rounds and dying. Rinse and repeat. Many features dont work well together (the speed / CQC together with AI), or not working properly (AI wont run, they will walk and shoot all the time).
1 Like
Because i cant edit my post:
for me camping per se is not bad. Camping in a BAD way is useless. Holding a GOOD and high valuable position on the other hand should be vital for any shooter out there. Otherwise its just a senseless meatgrinder.
1 Like
Yes, you need 2-3 ppl out of 10 that do the valuable position shooting for fire superiority. However, the more people do that the less people attack right? So if less people attack that means there comes more strain on the people attacking objectives, which in turn means the people you have left will die more doing the assaulting. (You can not look inside a bunker or closed objective from your vantage points). Which in turn means those people leading the assault will inevitably die more. So awarding more points to the people with the vantage point shooting will mean more people will do that. So you indirectly punish your assaulters because they dont get those more points for not dying because they are the guys getting killed more by your idea resulting in even less points compared to the other teammates. Resulting in them saying, fuck it if I dont get points for actually pushing the objective I will shoot from range as well. Etc. Etc. Resulting in less points for everyone in the long run because you dont get a win bonus ever again because points dont get pushed.
Instead of all of that ^^ you could just say: Hey dude thank you for doing the job of dying over and over but eventually taking the point. I would not want to do that so more points to you dude! You took one for the team.
No one ever does that, they all have a brilliant plan that did not work out because the plan was not so brilliant.
2 Likes
yes i woould like that , buy in every game , I feel like only me and the 3 guys are really trying to get the cap point or defend it , and guess what , then is the same guys that DIDNT die millions times, people who die 18 times , I can assure you that they are not trying to cap point , they just running around in the open shooting wathever, and then get almost same reward that the people pushing the team.
Doesnt work on LW will work twice less in Squads.
Bots alone which apparently is the core of the game, destroys any hopes of realistic game.
Currently this by far most idiotic AI ive ever seen cant even stay in cover or in house. And will run after you like child who lost mommy at supermarket completely disregarding is there 9 artillerys, 90 planes, 2 nukes , 900 tanks and darth vader himself between you and them if you are further than 15metres from your baby bots.
So as long as there are bots you can kind of kiss goodbye for any realism hopes.
Maps are another thing that doesnt exactly support slowpaced HLL kind of gameplay.
Tanks & MG’s currently are highly effective so idk why anyone wouldnt play them.
If you are referring that MG’s should be like in HLL that they have insane suppressive effect, I honestly cant even imagine how much fun that would be. Maps are like funnels, extremely small, 75 bots spraying at you on open field > 20 mins of different shades of grey as you cant do shit in the suppression.
That indeed would be fairly boring, HLL for example is fun for 1 game at the most then its just boring AF.
You can literally wash your car, get groceries, visit grandmas grave & build a death star and by that time the average round of HLL is at midway and absolutely nothing drastic have happened.
But if thats the gameplay you people wish for why dont you just play HLL?
You can check steamcharts how many people does agree with your squad / ps / hll statement.
If I recall none of them have over 15k peak players.
15k people pre-ordered cod / battlefield before it came available for pre-order.
Squad / Hll / Ps all require massive coordination, communication, teamplay to be even remotely enjoyable. Thats quite hard to imagine to happen in game where majority of “players” are bots that cant do such elementary task as stay indoors during artillery strike.
1 Like