I see this is out now on Steam Early Access. A tad expensive, however, for an EA game. Anyone thinking of picking this up?
http://store.steampowered.com/app/393380/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/393380/)
At that price, no way. No co-op, no single player, no bots, and at present, no vehicles. I'm really shocked at the asking price, I would have given it a shot for $20. Furthermore, to be quite frank, the community seems to be extremely elitist. Like they are all badasses because they play a game that is marketed as authentic and anyone who plays anything else, or criticizes Squad just isn't tough enough. For a game that is entirely reliant on mp and the community, this is a real problem. For now, I'm passing.
That's certainly not good. Too bad as it looks promising.
What JH said. You get a lot of nothing for 39.99.
:(
Well, maybe when it's out of EA it may be worth a closer look (unless the price goes up even more).
Quote from: IronX on December 15, 2015, 09:08:01 PM
:(
Well, maybe when it's out of EA it may be worth a closer look (unless the price goes up even more).
I'm gonna watch for it to ripen. I like the scope of the multi-player maps & teams but haven't been buying much Early Access stuff lately.
Sucker here... :-[ pre-ordered (double sucker :-[ :-[) so not so expensive, though. I like the idea of a big MP shooter which isn't run and gun. I'm vaguely hoping to find some current friends who'll play it. Remains to be seen whether I'll cope with people playing at soldiers and ordering me about, though...
So, to be "that guy," what does it have over Insurgency, Red Orchestra 1 & 2, et al other than maybe something a little newer and shinier looking?
-I'll get back to blasting Fritz with my 91/30 now-
Quote from: Father Ted on December 16, 2015, 11:20:22 AM
Sucker here... :-[ pre-ordered (double sucker :-[ :-[) so not so expensive, though. I like the idea of a big MP shooter which isn't run and gun. I'm vaguely hoping to find some current friends who'll play it. Remains to be seen whether I'll cope with people playing at soldiers and ordering me about, though...
I'm still intrigued by it so if you like it and need a (not so good) team mate who doesn't want to order anyone about, keep me in mind. :buck2:
Quote from: IronX on December 16, 2015, 12:56:59 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on December 16, 2015, 11:20:22 AM
Sucker here... :-[ pre-ordered (double sucker :-[ :-[) so not so expensive, though. I like the idea of a big MP shooter which isn't run and gun. I'm vaguely hoping to find some current friends who'll play it. Remains to be seen whether I'll cope with people playing at soldiers and ordering me about, though...
I'm still intrigued by it so if you like it and need a (not so good) team mate who doesn't want to order anyone about, keep me in mind. :buck2:
Will do
@Carl, it is designed to encourage, maybe even demand (hence my reservations) team-play, and has built-in features to that end. RO2
can be played that way, but also suits a lone-wolf, quick-blast approach, and Insurgency I find a bit cramped. So I'll see. As I said, I probably won't play much unless I can get a few mates in. I know a few peeps who enjoy Arma co-op vs bots, and I'm hoping that Squad will have a similar vibe, but with the added thrill of being PvP.
Quote from: Dammit Carl! on December 16, 2015, 12:08:21 PM
So, to be "that guy," what does it have over Insurgency, Red Orchestra 1 & 2, et al other than maybe something a little newer and shinier looking?
-I'll get back to blasting Fritz with my 91/30 now-
The vid I saw made the map look pretty huge. Large hills & ridges, even. So large outdoor areas with small village buildings & such?
Dunno.. but it gave me the impression that the map area wasn't so small & restricted as the others mentioned. Yet not so large that you'll spend most of your time running around not seeing anyone.
Quote from: Nefaro on December 16, 2015, 03:23:54 PM
... Yet not so large that you'll spend most of your time running around not seeing anyone.
I wish I had that problem in RO2; everyone seems to see me just fine (and yes, I dodge, duck, dip, dive and doge too but to no avail)!
Quote from: Dammit Carl! on December 16, 2015, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on December 16, 2015, 03:23:54 PM
... Yet not so large that you'll spend most of your time running around not seeing anyone.
I wish I had that problem in RO2; everyone seems to see me just fine (and yes, I dodge, duck, dip, dive and doge too but to no avail)!
Same.
For some reason the pre-release gameplay of this reminded me a bit of one of my favorite multi-player shooters of all time,
Joint Operations.
They were actually getting into firefights from the shrubbery on two adjacent ridges, across a valley in between. Don't see that scope very often in shooters these days, especially with a 50v50 scope. But also having some village buildings in spots, for some fraggin' fun.
I've had enough of the "alleyway shooter", or small maps with few & limited routes. They're the reason I don't play shooters anymore. Gimme the huge outdoor maps & huge teams again! Hope this does the trick when it's finished.
Nefaro, you should really try out ARMA3. Spend 30 minutes walking / driving to the action or waiting for the chopper. Then die after a few seconds of combat then respawn at base and wait again.
Quote from: jomni on December 16, 2015, 07:40:41 PM
Nefaro, you should really try out ARMA3. Spend 30 minutes walking / driving to the action or waiting for the chopper. Then die after a few seconds of combat then respawn at base and wait again.
I plan on getting ARMA 3 at some point. But I'm still not sure whether the team size vs map size is the perfect fit for what I'm searching for.
Granted, I've only seen some vague
Squad vid with one map but the scope looked to be about right without having to spend 90% of your time traveling to the action. I've not played it, but it has the potential of achieving that sweet spot.
Also note that I don't really want the vehicle-fest that the few others with large maps end up turning into. It should be very infantry-focused. If I want to drive & fly around, shooting at others in multi-player, there are plenty other Sims & competitive games which have a better focus on such things. So there is definitely a sweet spot and this game may be close.
A few reasons why I'm staying away from this one...at least for now.
1 - I thought the Project Reality community was filled with terrible people that were not welcoming to new players. Hell - guys like BlueDrake are the types that play it, and I think that guy is annoying and abrasive as hell. The PR Mod changed BF2 in many ways, and there weren't any good tutorials. Things like base-building and squad leader management were completely transparent if you didn't know what to look for. God forbid you entered a game and didn't know how to use these confusing and somewhat hidden features - you would be instantly kicked from your in-game squad only after you received a staccato of insults via ingame voice chat. I can already see these same people filling the Squad community, based on forum comments and reviews.
2 - I have a limited capacity to enjoy PvP shooters. I play ArmA, but prefer the cooperative servers. In PvP game types I generally find that people are either really good at shooters (un-naturally good), or join games with no intention as working as a team member. With any new hot game on the market all types of people will initially flood a game, especially a FPS. I'll wait them out.
3 - I dont think Squad looks that good or offers anything new. Maybe I'm wrong or I'm just missing the boat, but capture the flag is capture the flag is capture the flag. The lemonade all tastes the same in the FPS world.
I bought it. Turning left and right has lag. Is anyone experiencing this?
Update: lag has gone away.
I die all the time.
Quote from: jomni on December 18, 2015, 08:44:55 PM
I die all the time.
I've come to terms with losing my FPS edge, now that I'm in olde age.
I die all the time.
While my younger FPS-twitcher self mocks me as a noob.
The meat is slow.
I think you really need your squad mates to watch your back in this one. Communication is key.
Quote from: Nefaro on December 18, 2015, 10:59:35 PM
I've come to terms with losing my FPS edge, now that I'm in olde age.
I die all the time.
While my younger FPS-twitcher self mocks me as a noob.
The meat is slow.
Well, I was hoping that this would be less about twitch and more about thought.
A while back I was playing an Arma co-op mission with some interweb friends and we got pinned down by a group of AI. We spent some time trying to work out where the fire was coming from and then some time planning how to deal with it*. It's this way of playing an FPS that I'm looking for in Squad. I've just had a quick go in MP and it definitely has potential. You are supposed to do what you're told by your squad leader, but you could form of squad of chums and then play with a bit of autonomy.
That works in Squad as well. It all depends on who's playing in the server.
Quote from: Father Ted on December 19, 2015, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on December 18, 2015, 10:59:35 PM
I've come to terms with losing my FPS edge, now that I'm in olde age.
I die all the time.
While my younger FPS-twitcher self mocks me as a noob.
The meat is slow.
Well, I was hoping that this would be less about twitch and more about thought.
A while back I was playing an Arma co-op mission with some interweb friends and we got pinned down by a group of AI. We spent some time trying to work out where the fire was coming from and then some time planning how to deal with it*. It's this way of playing an FPS that I'm looking for in Squad. I've just had a quick go in MP and it definitely has potential. You are supposed to do what you're told by your squad leader, but you could form of squad of chums and then play with a bit of autonomy.
It looks to be like that, and less twitch than many of the "hallway shooter" sort. Which is what I look for too. But still likely has some occasional twitchery to it, just for being an FPS.
Quote from: Nefaro on December 19, 2015, 07:34:15 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on December 19, 2015, 02:26:01 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on December 18, 2015, 10:59:35 PM
I've come to terms with losing my FPS edge, now that I'm in olde age.
I die all the time.
While my younger FPS-twitcher self mocks me as a noob.
The meat is slow.
Well, I was hoping that this would be less about twitch and more about thought.
A while back I was playing an Arma co-op mission with some interweb friends and we got pinned down by a group of AI. We spent some time trying to work out where the fire was coming from and then some time planning how to deal with it*. It's this way of playing an FPS that I'm looking for in Squad. I've just had a quick go in MP and it definitely has potential. You are supposed to do what you're told by your squad leader, but you could form of squad of chums and then play with a bit of autonomy.
It looks to be like that, and less twitch than many of the "hallway shooter" sort. Which is what I look for too. But still likely has some occasional twitchery to it, just for being an FPS.
At least you cannot bunny-hop in the game.
Quote from: jomni on December 19, 2015, 08:06:45 PM
At least you cannot bunny-hop in the game.
Oh sweet baby raptor jesus, those shooters make me hoppin mad. :tickedoff:
I caved into the peer pressure from some friends and made the purchase.
The game still needs a bit of optimization, but overall I think its great, and I'm looking forward to the end product.
This is probably the first shooter that I've played that isn't just about shooting. There's plenty of shooting to do, but shooting alone won't win maps. Teamwork wins and having a good squad that communicates internally, and a squad leader that can coordinate externally will easily rule the battlefield.
Everyone keeps saying that you have to use teamwork in this game to succeed without offering any specific details. Why is that so anymore in this game than say Insurgency? Or ARMA3? Or Project Reality? What makes Squad so different that it is so realistic you just have to have your $hit together as a team in order to win? It just seems like any other shooter to me. What makes it different?
I'm not focusing on anyone in particular here, I see the above ambiguous statements across the board on several forums, but with a complete lack of detail to support it.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 20, 2015, 10:49:44 AM
Everyone keeps saying that you have to use teamwork in this game to succeed without offering any specific details.
Maps are large, and objectives are often spread apart. You need the firepower of a squad and coordination with adjacent squads to be effective. One or two guys on their own will not be able to capture anything - maybe they'll kill a few enemy Soldiers but eventually they'll be found and delt with - or just bypassed for further objectives
Objectives are opened/closed in sequence. There is usually a front line established -once that front line is penetrated, new objectives open and the old ones are no longer able to be captured.
As stated in my earlier post, my ability to stay sharp in PvP FPS is degrading with each year of my life. However, I'm enjoying the Squad Leader experience, and coordination that comes with it.
I still fail to see how any of that is unique. It also presupposes that the opposing team is organized and using team based tactics. I mean, if the opfor is disorganized and spread out across the map, I don't see any reason why team tactics would be any more necessary here than in any other game.
You mentioned it's the first shooter that you've played that isn't just about shooting. What else is there? Are there different player classes with specific skills and gear that are useful or necessary, such as medics, radio operators, etc.? How do they tip the balance in a meaningful way?
I'm just trying to understand why I should pay $40 for this. If it's truly a unique experience, I'd be willing to give it a shot. But in the videos I've watched, I just don't see anything unique, other than the people playing it who seem to think they are the next GI Joe.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 20, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
I still fail to see how any of that is unique. It also presupposes that the opposing team is organized and using team based tactics. I mean, if the opfor is disorganized and spread out across the map, I don't see any reason why team tactics would be any more necessary here than in any other game.
You mentioned it's the first shooter that you've played that isn't just about shooting. What else is there? Are there different player classes with specific skills and gear that are useful or necessary, such as medics, radio operators, etc.? How do they tip the balance in a meaningful way?
I'm just trying to understand why I should pay $40 for this. If it's truly a unique experience, I'd be willing to give it a shot. But in the videos I've watched, I just don't see anything unique, other than the people playing it who seem to think they are the next GI Joe.
Squad Leaders can place Rally Points (squad spawn points) as well as placeable objects, such as FOBs (team spawn points), ammo points, defensive structures, etc.
The more members you get into a squad, the more equipment becomes available; medic slots, AT/RPGs, Machine Guns, grenade launchers.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 20, 2015, 10:49:44 AM
Everyone keeps saying that you have to use teamwork in this game to succeed without offering any specific details. Why is that so anymore in this game than say Insurgency? Or ARMA3? Or Project Reality? What makes Squad so different that it is so realistic you just have to have your $hit together as a team in order to win? It just seems like any other shooter to me. What makes it different?
I'm not focusing on anyone in particular here, I see the above ambiguous statements across the board on several forums, but with a complete lack of detail to support it.
I'm guessing that you're essentially right - it is just another shooter. The teamwork ethos is less about succeeding and more about enjoying the teamwork itself. The game does have mechanics which corral the player in that direction You have to be in a squad, and you can only talk to other members of your squad via "radio" or people near you with "local voice". Squad leaders can talk with other squad leaders. SLs also have the ability to place spawn and re-supply points. There are medics who can revive you. And so on - I haven't played enough to have seen all the ins and outs yet.
But in the end it is still just a shooter - to really enjoy it you have to role-play.
BTW, you mentioned Project Reality - well Squad is the stand-alone, current gen game made by the creators of that mod.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 20, 2015, 10:49:44 AM
Everyone keeps saying that you have to use teamwork in this game to succeed without offering any specific details. Why is that so anymore in this game than say Insurgency? Or ARMA3? Or Project Reality? What makes Squad so different that it is so realistic you just have to have your $hit together as a team in order to win? It just seems like any other shooter to me. What makes it different?
I'm not focusing on anyone in particular here, I see the above ambiguous statements across the board on several forums, but with a complete lack of detail to support it.
Jarhead is right. It's all the same. Good team with treamwork and communication, better results. No matter what game. In Squad, once you get a poorly functioning team, it's just like any other game. I have had experiences where it was totally pointless to play.
Maybe what makes Squad better at enforcing team work (and special) is that there's
no levelling up and weapons customization. So you have to play your role. It scares the typical "Battlefield" twitch fans away and hopefully you get a more mature player base. Only a few roles have scopes. You don't gain anything from grinding and accumulating kills, doing stunts, etc. ARMA doesn't have ranks but has weapons customization so everybody turns into snipers which are suitable for the large maps. Insurgency gives you money in between rounds to buy goodies and perks.
It's actually plays very much like ARMA regarding the map size, slow movement minus the fancy vehicles and weapons. Insurgency is pretty twitchy since it's using the Counterstrike engine and maps are very small.
I wish there was a coop mode since that is where I experience the most satisfying teamwork in shooters.
Quote from: jomni on December 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM
It scares the typical "Battlefield" twitch fans away and hopefully you get a more mature player base. Only a few roles have scopes.
It's actually plays very much like ARMA regarding the map size, slow movement minus the fancy vehicles and weapons. Insurgency is pretty twitchy since it's using the Counterstrike engine and maps are very small.
I wish there was a coop mode since that is where I experience the most satisfying teamwork in shooters.
Ironic, because the game started as a mod for Battlefield, which then had no leveling up for equipment.
Quote from: jomni on December 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM
I wish there was a coop mode since that is where I experience the most satisfying teamwork in shooters.
Agree'd. There's still lots to be developed.
I have no experience with Project Reality
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 20, 2015, 11:07:10 AM
Objectives are opened/closed in sequence. There is usually a front line established -once that front line is penetrated, new objectives open and the old ones are no longer able to be captured.
Quote from: jomni on December 20, 2015, 05:39:25 PM
Maybe what makes Squad better at enforcing team work (and special) is that there's no levelling up and weapons customization. So you have to play your role. It scares the typical "Battlefield" twitch fans away and hopefully you get a more mature player base. Only a few roles have scopes. You don't gain anything from grinding and accumulating kills, doing stunts, etc. ARMA doesn't have ranks but has weapons customization so everybody turns into snipers which are suitable for the large maps. Insurgency gives you money in between rounds to buy goodies and perks.
It's actually plays very much like ARMA regarding the map size, slow movement minus the fancy vehicles and weapons. Insurgency is pretty twitchy since it's using the Counterstrike engine and maps are very small.
Sounds more like the kind of FPS gameplay I've been waiting for every time I see more details, with more focused team vs team & role restrictions. Encourages sticking with your squad, less hot-dogging, no vehicle rush contest, and no teams full of snipers? Want.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/12/21/squad-review-early-access/
Good article. The author sheds light on one of the biggest downfalls of a game that focuses on squad-based gameplay.
What happens when your squad doesn't want to play as a Squad. Or the Squad Leader isn't a leader at all? There's not much you can do, but leave that squad.
Recommendation: Play this game with friends, or learn the game well enough to lead an in-game squad.
I am really thinking hard about picking this up.
Some of the best gaming moments I've had is when playing RO2/Rising Storm on a decent team with good communications and teamwork. I'm drawn to a game like this that emphasises those types of gameplay mechanics.
Quote from: Toonces on December 22, 2015, 07:43:21 AM
I am really thinking hard about picking this up.
Some of the best gaming moments I've had is when playing RO2/Rising Storm on a decent team with good communications and teamwork. I'm drawn to a game like this that emphasises those types of gameplay mechanics.
Firefights in Squad have been intense, thusfar.
Squad also has similar weapons damage model as RO. One or two rounds of 5.56 will drop a person.
There is a buzz about this game, but I don't get why all this can't be done with arma3. It kinda seems like your paying 40 bucks to play a version of a reinvented wheel.
Quote from: Skoop on December 22, 2015, 03:42:05 PM
There is a buzz about this game, but I don't get why all this can't be done with arma3. It kinda seems like your paying 40 bucks to play a version of a reinvented wheel.
This. Exactly this. Its what I've been trying to say throughout this thread. Why not find serious players who enjoy team based play in any other shooter, including ARMA3? I get it, Squad makes it much more likely that you will be matched in random games with those kinds of players, and it will prevent players from spamming a class or weapon type, but other than that, I don't see this one offering anything new.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 22, 2015, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: Skoop on December 22, 2015, 03:42:05 PM
There is a buzz about this game, but I don't get why all this can't be done with arma3. It kinda seems like your paying 40 bucks to play a version of a reinvented wheel.
This. Exactly this. Its what I've been trying to say throughout this thread. Why not find serious players who enjoy team based play in any other shooter, including ARMA3? I get it, Squad makes it much more likely that you will be matched in random games with those kinds of players, and it will prevent players from spamming a class or weapon type, but other than that, I don't see this one offering anything new.
A difference for me is that, even on my gaming rig, ArmA runs poorly in largely populated servers. Add to the fact that ArmA physically cannot handle the amount of addons/scripts that the servers are using.
When ArmA gets optimized to run smoother then maybe this argument would have more weight. Apparently, there's a patch in the works. However, I'm not holding my breath. ArmA has been plagued by poor MP performance for years. I doubt that BI has found a magical solution.
Edit - I will admit, I enjoy played ArmA in a cooperative capacity. Invade & Annex and Insurgency are great cooperative game modes, and I've seen some great cooperation (with total strangers) on some of the servers. If only Squad had some sort of cooperative gameplay mode.
^Are you talking Arma 2 or 3 or just the franchise in general ? I know 2 was a resource hog, but 3 was suppose to run better for people. I get what your saying though Arma can seem a behemoth of a game at times, sometimes simpler / streamlined is better.
Quote from: Skoop on December 22, 2015, 06:29:33 PM
^Are you talking Arma 2 or 3 or just the franchise in general ? I know 2 was a resource hog, but 3 was suppose to run better for people. I get what your saying though Arma can seem a behemoth of a game at times, sometimes simpler / streamlined is better.
ArmA 3 multiplayer still runs horribly. I experience a 20-30 FPS drop in any multiplayer game that has over 15 players in it. It ruins the experience for me. Squad is a nice bridge between Insurgency and ArmA.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 22, 2015, 04:06:41 PM
Quote from: Skoop on December 22, 2015, 03:42:05 PM
There is a buzz about this game, but I don't get why all this can't be done with arma3. It kinda seems like your paying 40 bucks to play a version of a reinvented wheel.
This. Exactly this. Its what I've been trying to say throughout this thread. Why not find serious players who enjoy team based play in any other shooter, including ARMA3? I get it, Squad makes it much more likely that you will be matched in random games with those kinds of players, and it will prevent players from spamming a class or weapon type, but other than that, I don't see this one offering anything new.
Well, this is where it's at. It's set up from the get-go to facilitate cooperative squad play in all servers. You can do this in Arma/RO2/Insurgency, but those games require people to make more of an effort to adopt the ethos.
In the end it's only another game - there's been enough exposure in this thread to let you know whether it's for you or not.
@ JH- I think the difference is this. I do browse ARMA3 MP servers pretty regularly. The most populated servers are always the King of the Hill and the Altis Life RPG-type servers. I've never tried the RPG servers so I can't comment on them except to say I don't think they're even close to Rising Storm/KotH. For KotH, it is fun, and teamwork is helpful, but there isn't anything that really forces you to work as a team...no mechanism. And, as mentioned, you skill up, upgrades, perks, etc. These have a normalizing influence on the game so I get it, but it's not teamwork building.
Squad sounds like RO2/Rising Storm, except that it implements mechanisms through the spawn points that influence players to work as a team. You see this somewhat in RO2 where you can join a squad and if your squad leader is decent you can get advantages by working with your team in the sense of using smoke, calling arty, etc. But I think Squad takes this a step farther, and it is also set in a modern era unlike RO2.
So to answer your question, I think you can get much of this through ARMA if you join a clan or otherwise join a team-centric group. But, that requires you to either be joined up with a group (hassle) or play on the group's schedule (hassle). Squad sounds like a drop in/drop out game, more like RO2.
I can perceive the difference. I don't know that it's worth $40 for me just now, but I certainly like the idea.
Edit: Father Ted posted while I was typing this...said the same thing in far fewer words. Brevity is godliness. O:-)
Quote from: Toonces on December 22, 2015, 07:03:25 PM
Edit: Father Ted posted while I was typing this...said the same thing in far fewer words. Brevity is godliness. O:-)
You're a kind man :)
I think also this game is set up to attract that kind of player - it's either by luck or determination you come across a working team in other shooters where this game has been specifically set up to say 'we only do team' and the elitist/snobbishness you speak of, hopefully imho makes the bunny hopping/I just want to be a sniper/lone wolf kill death ratio builder think 'fk that' and go back to call of duty - if the community consists of mature players and adults then fingers crossed that's what it will attract
The drop-in/drop-out 50v50 is a huge plus for me.
I get pretty tired of having to coordinate a schedule with numerous others. Only to find that some don't show, we always end up waiting long stretches for others, some of whom end up taking off early anyway, and other such time wasting. Or having keep dropping in & out of multiple small-pop servers in an attempt to find a proper large team v team ongoing battle with no idea where or what's going on.
It's great when I can just jump straight in, join a squad, go hook up and get to straight to gaming. I'll suffer the occasional dumbass for all the time saved. Not gettin any younger.
Quote from: Nefaro on December 23, 2015, 01:06:25 PM
The drop-in/drop-out 50v50 is a huge plus for me.
I get pretty tired of having to coordinate a schedule with numerous others. Only to find that some don't show, we always end up waiting long stretches for others, some of whom end up taking off early anyway, and other such time wasting. Or having keep dropping in & out of multiple small-pop servers in an attempt to find a proper large team v team ongoing battle with no idea where or what's going on.
It's great when I can just jump straight in, join a squad, go hook up and get to straight to gaming. I'll suffer the occasional dumbass for all the time saved. Not gettin any younger.
This.
This is starting to make sense with the whole vibe of the game, just wish it wasn't 40bucks but it could also be money well spent if I'm still playing it 6 months to a year from now.
I was watching a vid of the game today and noticed how the squad leader can order barricades and the like to be built, which is pretty neat. I'm so tempted to pick it up, but it's almost C$50 and that's a little hard to swallow. Had it been going for $20 or so like similar EA games, I wouldn't hesitate.
Maybe the price is to scare a way the kiddies.
Yeah, I would have already bought this at $20, but at $40 suddenly I'm Mr. Tightwad. ::)
Quote from: jomni on December 23, 2015, 08:08:23 PM
Maybe the price is to scare a way the kiddies.
It's for a smaller devlopment company. I'm all about $40 knowing I'll easily get 40 hours out of it.
It's still being filled out though, right?
I can put off the purchase for awhile, until the odd shooter impulse strikes.
So I watched some Youtube Let's Plays of Squad last night and I think I'm moving more to the Jarhead camp. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this game. However, I'm not seeing enough meat here to justify buying it for $40 when so many other alternatives are already in my Steam library.
Without vehicles it looks like an awfully long walk to the fight.
The squad mechanics are interesting. But, many games already have the ability to spawn on your squad leader (for example, RO2). What Squad offers that I haven't seen before is the ability to create sandbags, barbed wire, and stuff like that in order to fortify your position. Ok, that's kind of cool, but...
The communication mechanics weren't as apparent in the videos I watched. In theory it sounds pretty cool, but I'm not a big talker in MP games anyway.
The graphics were ok, but nothing mind-blowing.
I think for now I'm going to stick with KotH and ARMA 3. Maybe when this matures some more I'll revisit it.
Quote from: Toonces on December 24, 2015, 09:08:33 AM
Without vehicles it looks like an awfully long walk to the fight.
Not really a long walk if the squad knows how to keep their friends alive and the squad leader knows how to set up spawn points.
QuoteThe squad mechanics are interesting. But, many games already have the ability to spawn on your squad leader (for example, RO2).
You cannot spawn from squad leader. The leader has to set up a fixed spawn point. The spawn point has limited spawn count. So the leader needs to create a new one when it runs out. Too bad if he dies and have to start from main base.
QuoteWhat Squad offers that I haven't seen berore is the ability to create sandbags, barbed wire, and stuff like that in order to fortify your position. Ok, that's kind of cool, but...
ARMA can also do this.
QuoteI think for now I'm going to stick with KotH and ARMA 3. Maybe when this matures some more I'll revisit it.
Yes go with KotH ARMA and have fun. Squad can be more work / frustration than fun especially when there's no teamwork. But I guess that's the point of the game.
For someone who hasn't played ARMA 3, and not really even ARMA 2 more than a few minutes, I'm wondering how it's multi-player differs from Squad in some specific areas.
Does it support 50 v 50 or higher team matches without too many network problems?
The large outdoor battlefield is really what I'm looking for, specifically with a heavy infantry focus. Fewer vehicles, the better, and generally only for short transport hops. I suppose the latter would have to be a custom server-specific setting in ARMA? I already have flight & tank sims which portray such things much more intimately, and I don't want some enemy yahoo in a tank or gunship just coming by and blowing the snot out of me, with little recourse, because he won a foot race against a teammate for the privilege.
In other words, I want a good outdoor infantry-focused shooter with large teams, large outdoor maps, and any vehicles should be unobtrusive & background support. I expected such a specific multi-player server would only be available in ARMA3 via specific user-run servers with custom settings, which wouldn't be a guarantee. That's why I've not picked it up in past sales yet, despite knowing it's been the best option for a good modern-ish Tactical FPS. Hoping my suppositions are wrong and someone can knock me off the fence. :)
ARMA 3 MP depends on the scenario. There's so many game types from small set-piece scenarios, cooperative (invade and annex) (my favorite), survival (Wasteland), roleplaying (ARMA-life), competitive capture with the same battlefield feel, Counterstrike money earning (King of the Hill), etc. ARMA wins out in content. But not all modes encourage realistic tactical team-play in a strict sense.
Other than the mechanics that encourage teamwork, what else exactly is "authentic" about Squad? Are ballistics modeled? Penetration? Body armor? Are there different types of rounds, ie. FMJ, JHP, etc.? Is terrain destructible?
Quote from: Nefaro on December 24, 2015, 07:43:15 PM
For someone who hasn't played ARMA 3, and not really even ARMA 2 more than a few minutes, I'm wondering how it's multi-player differs from Squad in some specific areas.
Does it support 50 v 50 or higher team matches without too many network problems?
The large outdoor battlefield is really what I'm looking for, specifically with a heavy infantry focus. Fewer vehicles, the better, and generally only for short transport hops. I suppose the latter would have to be a custom server-specific setting in ARMA? I already have flight & tank sims which portray such things much more intimately, and I don't want some enemy yahoo in a tank or gunship just coming by and blowing the snot out of me, with little recourse, because he won a foot race against a teammate for the privilege.
In other words, I want a good outdoor infantry-focused shooter with large teams, large outdoor maps, and any vehicles should be unobtrusive & background support. I expected such a specific multi-player server would only be available in ARMA3 via specific user-run servers with custom settings, which wouldn't be a guarantee. That's why I've not picked it up in past sales yet, despite knowing it's been the best option for a good modern-ish Tactical FPS. Hoping my suppositions are wrong and someone can knock me off the fence. :)
You should grab Arma 3 in the sale nef and give it a whirl, it's one of those games almost everyone should try atleast once. Come to think of it, the Vietnam mods might be up your alley, not much armor in that conflict. All kinds of infantry focused missions to download on armaholic.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on December 24, 2015, 08:29:31 PM
Other than the mechanics that encourage teamwork, what else exactly is "authentic" about Squad? Are ballistics modeled? Penetration? Body armor? Are there different types of rounds, ie. FMJ, JHP, etc.? Is terrain destructible?
Probably the weapons and ballistics but I wouldn't know for sure.
But there are so little options in the game. This is, I guess, the big downside for most.
Quote from: Skoop on December 24, 2015, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on December 24, 2015, 07:43:15 PM
For someone who hasn't played ARMA 3, and not really even ARMA 2 more than a few minutes, I'm wondering how it's multi-player differs from Squad in some specific areas.
Does it support 50 v 50 or higher team matches without too many network problems?
The large outdoor battlefield is really what I'm looking for, specifically with a heavy infantry focus. Fewer vehicles, the better, and generally only for short transport hops. I suppose the latter would have to be a custom server-specific setting in ARMA? I already have flight & tank sims which portray such things much more intimately, and I don't want some enemy yahoo in a tank or gunship just coming by and blowing the snot out of me, with little recourse, because he won a foot race against a teammate for the privilege.
In other words, I want a good outdoor infantry-focused shooter with large teams, large outdoor maps, and any vehicles should be unobtrusive & background support. I expected such a specific multi-player server would only be available in ARMA3 via specific user-run servers with custom settings, which wouldn't be a guarantee. That's why I've not picked it up in past sales yet, despite knowing it's been the best option for a good modern-ish Tactical FPS. Hoping my suppositions are wrong and someone can knock me off the fence. :)
You should grab Arma 3 in the sale nef and give it a whirl, it's one of those games almost everyone should try atleast once. Come to think of it, the Vietnam mods might be up your alley, not much armor in that conflict. All kinds of infantry focused missions to download on armaholic.
I'm sure I will enjoy ARMA 3.
Was just concerned that it has such a wide variety of possibilities, being pretty much a multi-player FPS server toolkit, that the specific server(s) won't be highly populated. I mean.. they're all basically mod servers since they are so customizable, right?
Variety is definitely good, but I also wonder if the myriad of different MP server setups spread the population out too much. We're all familiar with those times when our favorite large-map mod server has only six players in it whilst another that you don't enjoy very much is practically full.
May sound odd, and I'm surprised it's coming from me, but maybe there is one benefit to game server conformity in this case. It would likely help maximize server populations instead of spreading them out across many different ones. This is something I started thinking about when the comparisons here began - not just regarding Squad vs ARMA. Thoughts?
For those who are looking for organised pub-play in RO2, have a look at the 29th ID servers. The 29th is a "realism unit" and they run what they call pub scrims on Friday and Saturday nights (usually around 2200 GMT). Essentially these are one-life-per-round games in which each player has a designated role and is expected to do what they're told by their squad leader. You tend to have to be in the server before it starts, but once in all they ask of you is that you don't mess about. There is a bit of waiting around whilst everything is set up (sides picked, asshats kicked, etc) but it's worth it IMO for the ratcheting up of the nerves when you're advancing into a village or whatever.
Whelp, I've been reading stories and reviews of this game and I decided to take the plunge. Installing. I'll post up some impressions after I get some time in it. O0
I was over at SimHQ and this post by a user callsign GunnyHighway convinced me to give Squad a try:
I joined a squad led by "PhysicsXX". This guy must have been a pro at one point in his life because he knew what to tell us and when to say it and had a great appreciation of the terrain. In the midst of that unforgiving hurling chaos, there was a little feeling of safety in that fragile soap airbubble. Some barking orders could be heard here and there from behind a couple of dried mud walls or from inside a structure. Once in a while a burp, a fart irrupted and more detonations, machineguns growling, explosions and tiny cracks above heads rips the atmosphere again. None of those sound signals felt like they were recorded in an underground shooting range facility, it was live.
I got triggered and felt joy, excitement, sadness, fear, doubts, I even laughed under fire and chuckled at my own clumsiness. I also experienced latency, brought back to revisit old memories. I felt young again and then heavy and old again.
So in all the FPS I played the last 25 years, for all the Arma's packed with attitude loaded gamers, the Ghost Recons with flying reticules and the likes, I would not trade for an adrenaline rush in "Squad", when well led and under fire.
"Squad" delivers what its name said it would, the experience of a squad at it worst precarious situation, but at its best of the human spirit position under pressure. It almost felt like being in the corps, but that would be stretching it a little!...It is right on the $39.99.
Personally, I don't care that there is no-coop, no single players, etc...It is supposed to tell the story of a squad in Afghanistan, not to tell the story of the comfort one feels when home, playing "catch me if you can before I hit you", with one hand on the controller and the other shoving a pizza slice down his throat.
Hoo-yah!
Looking forward to your thoughts.
Why can't these games have single player modes:(
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on January 02, 2016, 11:26:51 AM
Why can't these games have single player modes:(
Multiplayer is pretty much the whole point of this particular game. Also, getting bots to do anything resembling human behaviour is probably beyond the resources of small dev teams.
Quote from: Toonces on January 02, 2016, 10:17:24 AM
I was over at SimHQ and this post by a user callsign GunnyHighway convinced me to give Squad a try:
Once in a while a burp, a fart irrupted and more detonations, machineguns growling, explosions and tiny cracks above heads rips the atmosphere again. None of those sound signals felt like they were recorded in an underground shooting range facility, it was live.
This was what struck me most strongly when I went online - it really did evoke those helmet-cam documentaries.
It "almost felt like being in the corps..." And "hoo-yah"? Give me a break.
Ok, I logged about 90 minutes on Squad this afternoon, two matches. Initial thoughts are as follows:
First, I liked it quite a bit. I have not played Project Reality yet (although I downloaded it today). Reading the manual for PR you can see how the devs (which were behind developing PR) are essentially recreating PR in their own engine. Much of the actions like squad chat and building fortifications are directly out of the PR manual. Since I haven't played it, though, I have to compare Squad to ARMA 3.
Graphically it looks fine, but is below ARMA 3 standards. The graphics were very good, though, and worked well enough for me.
The two matches I played probably didn't showcase the communication mechanics as well as they could have been. In my first match there was very little chatter. In my second match there was more chatter, but still not what I was expecting. Undoubtedly this is strongly influenced by the group you join up with.
I didn't really understand the point of the matches I was playing because I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of the game. Mostly I tried to stick close to my squad and not TK anyone. Compared to ARMA 3 KotH, the map(s) in Squad felt much more open and sprawling. The fight takes place over much more ground than in KotH, which tends to bog down into a few hundred square meters. I liked it, though, because it gave us much more room to maneuver, more flanking and such.
There aren't enough servers. Which is to say, there are quite a few servers, but most of them were completely full, and there are a ton of European servers. I only saw a handful of populated US servers, and they were mostly full. I got on one match that was about 30 v 30. But it was much less populated when I joined it.
As you've seen repeatedly, when you start a match you have to join a squad; you can't freelance. When you join a squad you have to pick a role in that squad. There were nowhere near the number of weapons as in ARMA, but since I'm not super into all the various weapons I didn't really mind. I'm more of an M-16 or AK-47 guy, so missing all those other rifles wasn't a big deal.
As far as I can tell I didn't get TK'd, although I TK'd two teammates, one in each match. I apologized and nobody seemed to upset.
Based on my limited time, I think this game will be a winner eventually, but it's pretty thin on features for $40. I'm happy enough and plan to keep it, and I expect it will go into my MP FPS rotation. This game will absolutely shine with a group of like-minded people joining up a squad who are really into playing using teamwork. If you're happy with KotH or some other MP FPS there is probably not enough meat in Squad to convince you to take the plunge right now. It's good and I enjoyed it, but you can theoretically do most of this in ARMA 3; maybe not so much in KotH, but if you got on another server that encourages team play then ARMA is far more feature-rich. But I like that Squad allows you to just jump right in and kind of forces you to work with your team.
Overall, my impressions are positive. The game is a bit overpriced, but then again, that will thin out the riff-raff a bit, too.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 02, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
It "almost felt like being in the corps..." And "hoo-yah"? Give me a break.
just asking, not arguing...........
is there a corps code of 'if you werent in it you dont know?' kind of thing with the Marines?
can you not mention it unless youre missing limbs or have permanent scars?
Quote from: undercovergeek on January 02, 2016, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 02, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
It "almost felt like being in the corps..." And "hoo-yah"? Give me a break.
just asking, not arguing...........
is there a corps code of 'if you werent in it you dont know?' kind of thing with the Marines?
can you not mention it unless youre missing limbs or have permanent scars?
Of course not, but I don't know any veteran who would compare service, especially related to combat, to a video game. I served during peace time and don't have any scars or missing limbs, thank God. I still wouldn't make the comparison.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 02, 2016, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: undercovergeek on January 02, 2016, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 02, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
It "almost felt like being in the corps..." And "hoo-yah"? Give me a break.
just asking, not arguing...........
is there a corps code of 'if you werent in it you dont know?' kind of thing with the Marines?
can you not mention it unless youre missing limbs or have permanent scars?
Of course not, but I don't know any veteran who would compare service, especially related to combat, to a video game. I served during peace time and don't have any scars or missing limbs, thank God. I still wouldn't make the comparison.
understood O0
@Toonces. Thanks for your early impressions. I read somewhere that vehicles will be coming this month so it'll be interesting to see what impact that has on gameplay.
I wasn't missing them, to be honest. While the map(s) I played on (not sure if it was the same map twice, or two maps) were fairly large, it wasn't nearly as much of a hassle to run to the target as I thought it would be.
I'll be curious to see how they change the dynamics of the game. I know in KotH they can completely break the game if you have good players in jets sniping the shit out of everyone trying to get into the capture zone.
If you're completely happy with ARMA 3 right now I don't really know that this game brings enough new to justify $40. For myself, I have room in my library for another FPS, but I seem to spend a lot of time playing MP shooters in my free time because they're easy to get into and out of without too much stress.
One of the front page reviews on Steam has a guy saying it made him feel like he was back in Afghanistan again. The review was pretty articulate.
Having never been to Afghanistan, nor been shot at, I can't really comment on how "realistic" the game is.
Quote from: Toonces on January 02, 2016, 04:28:03 PM
One of the front page reviews on Steam has a guy saying it made him feel like he was back in Afghanistan again. The review was pretty articulate.
Having never been to Afghanistan, nor been shot at, I can't really comment on how "realistic" the game is.
I haven't been to Afghanistan either, but I find it difficult to believe that any video game could "make someone feel like" they are back in the suck again. Yes, media, such as movies, books, games, etc. can certainly generate intense emotions and memories, but "making you feel like you're there"? No way. I call bullshit.
I have commented on military themed games and authenticity at great length. Several games definitely model certain aspects of combat, marksmanship, fieldcraft, etc. well, but never have I felt like I was not playing a game, or that I was back in 29 Palms. You just can't recreate the adrenaline, fatigue, fear/anxiety, pain, frustration, annoyance, etc. of military life on a 27" monitor.
This is a tough one IMO. I think that games could give a flavour of something one has experienced - not put you back there - but certainly bring back thought-processes and emotions. I'm fervently grateful that I never had to go to war, but there are other things I've done (on a hugely more trivial level) IRL which I have subsequently done virtually and caught myself feeling the same things whilst playing the game. Anyway, that's by the by.
What I really wanted to say was please do not make it the game's fault that someone has posted a possibly fanciful review.
^ Fair enough, Jarhead. FWIW, I didn't feel like I was in Afghanistan- I felt like I was playing a video game using the Unreal engine which always makes me feel a bit barfy after about an hour or so. I had to turn it off after the last round as I can feel a headache and nausea coming on. I hope this doesn't keep happening.
I'm going to give Project Reality a try. Be curious to see how the two match up.
Do you get nauseated with other shooters? I find I get this way initially, but after playing them for a while I get somewhat used to it.
Quote from: Toonces on January 02, 2016, 05:36:44 PM
^ Fair enough, Jarhead. FWIW, I didn't feel like I was in Afghanistan- I felt like I was playing a video game using the Unreal engine which always makes me feel a bit barfy after about an hour or so. I had to turn it off after the last round as I can feel a headache and nausea coming on. I hope this doesn't keep happening.
I'm going to give Project Reality a try. Be curious to see how the two match up.
I like Project Reality. I did find the combat to be fairly intense...again, for a game. Lots of maps, lots of units, lots of nationalities and gear. Its pretty impressive what they accomplished on the BF2 engine.
Quote from: Toonces on January 02, 2016, 05:36:44 PM
^ Fair enough, Jarhead. FWIW, I didn't feel like I was in Afghanistan- I felt like I was playing a video game using the Unreal engine which always makes me feel a bit barfy after about an hour or so. I had to turn it off after the last round as I can feel a headache and nausea coming on. I hope this doesn't keep happening.
Aww damn.
Forgot about the Unreal engine side effects. The vast majority of Unreal-based games do this to me also. >:(
I think it's a result of the way they shoehorned widescreen view into an old engine that didn't originally support widescreen. Makes the peripheral view of the ground & scenery look rather off to your brain when the view is moving.
May be a deal-breaker if that's the case, although I recall one or two derivatives that weren't too bad. That's a small percentage though.
Quote from: IronX on January 02, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
Do you get nauseated with other shooters? I find I get this way initially, but after playing them for a while I get somewhat used to it.
It's hit or miss. It seems to happen more with Unreal-engine games, but I could be wrong on that. Something about the way the screen scrolls around when looking around gets to me.
Regardless, I'm thinking of requesting a refund- a first for me. The more I think about it, the more I think this game isn't really scratching any itches that aren't scratched by other games I have already. I think ARMA 3 KotH is good enough for now, and I can always hit up some clan play if I really need to get my teamwork on.
Still thinking on this...I'm at 2 hours playtime, so I kind of have to make my decision based on my earlier gameplay.
Alright, so I played ARMA 3 KotH, Squad, and Project Reality in a row tonight to get the pros and cons of each.
For ARMA 3, all of the 120 person KotH servers were full so I ended up on a 59/80 server. 59 people just isn't enough to populate a KotH server. Also, there was no chatter whatsoever on the radios. ARMA 3's internal comms suite sucks (at least in KotH) so it's not unusual for there to be light chatter, but this was dead silence. I lone wolfed for a while but bored fairly rapidly.
Next up was Squad. I should say, I tried to play Squad. There are about 8-10 72 person servers, but only about 4 in the U.S. All of them were full. There were a few European servers that were open, but relatively lightly populated. So far I'm finding a lot of frustration getting into online matches; there never seems to be any open, well-populated servers. Also, I've yet to see a server bigger than 72 people. So in reality I didn't actually get any gameplay in.
Finally I booted up Project Reality. This was my first time in the game, complete and utter novice. I had a lot of difficulty getting my configuration to stick, which has to do with Windows 10 not allowing me to remove read-only permissions on the PR folder. As a result, I played the game on medium graphics, so take my comments on that with a grain of salt. Overall, it looked ok but nowhere near as good as Squad. Again, I really need to try it with the graphics cranked to make a fair comparison. They seemed on par with Red Orchestra 2 at medium settings, maybe a touch worse. However, the gameplay was utterly amazing and I am itching to learn more about the game now. I spawned into an open squad as a rifleman and clearly all of these guys knew what the hell they were doing. We were on the Grozny map and as soon as I got on I let them know I was brand new. They were pretty patient with me, and since I've played some FPS's before I could figure out a lot of it intuitively. What struck me was just how much these guys talked- it was non-stop and very professional. Surprising, really, as I've never been in a game where the players were so articulate about calling out where friendlies and enemies are, and describing the plan we were going to execute. I played for about 2 hours, had one kill (a teamkill), and got shot myself twice. There was a lot of maneuvering, suppressing fire, and "doing stuff" besides shooting enemies in CQ fighting.
I'm kind of torn, because I want to like Squad, and I think if I could actually get on a server and play it some more I could really enjoy it. But the lack of servers is a real bummer. The PR servers were running at or over 120 people, I think we had something like 50 v 60 during my match, and there was a lot going on.
I need to spend more time with PR, but I think my final assessment, given my limited time with PR, is that of the three games I want to invest a lot more time learning PR. That was some seriously hardcore gameplay and I'm eager to do some more of it. When Squad matures a bit, gets more and bigger servers, and the community develops some, I think it will complement PR nicely. For now, if you're sitting on the fence, I think PR will give you everything Squad does and more, for free, at the expense of some graphical fidelity.
If you haven't tried Project Reality online yet, I encourage you to look into it. Before you log on, though, take some time to browse the noobie welcome thread on their forums and read the manual. There are some courtesies they expect you to follow on the servers, like not entering vehicles if you're not in the squad, that aren't necessarily intuitive coming from ARMA, among other things.
There is more communication in Cooperative Invade and Annex ARMA3 servers than KotH
I usually sort the servers by number of players and I never see open COOP anywhere near the top. It's all KotH, RPG, and Sandbox.
What servers rae you playing on, Jomni?
I actually really enjoy squad. I could never get into PR, it felt too clunky or me
I found that PR really comes together when you have a good squad leader and a good commander!
Quote from: Toonces on January 05, 2016, 07:23:33 AM
I usually sort the servers by number of players and I never see open COOP anywhere near the top. It's all KotH, RPG, and Sandbox.
What servers rae you playing on, Jomni?
Australian ones.
I dont get why people dont join a clan for Arma. Pretty much all the fun is in communication and yelling at each other.
I do love my clan, the 160th.
I cant wait for squad to get vehicles though, the game is already ridiculously fun for an alpha. My only problem is that youd think the russian army would have anough money for basic sights. Cant see anything with the irons
The sight pictures are terrible. Like the programmers never shouldered an actual weapon. PR suffered from this as well, and they aren't the only ones. Most games suffer.
Can't remember what game this was from but they got it right:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--ztv8K0b_--%2Fc_fit%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_636%2F18j344dvwqt7mjpg.jpg&hash=1abae8ff36c1cb4e75c3f36dad99d485d8440c55)
I found a good description of the issue on some forum thread: "instead of looking through the sights like you do with a real weapon, in most games it's like your looking AT the sights". The pic I posted gets it right, the rear sight ring is out of focus, you are aware of it but not staring AT it when you are aiming.
A quick Google shows we aren't the only ones to notice, but a read of some of the threads on the issue over on the Squad forums shows the fanboys defending the way it is being done (surprise!) against people with (claimed) actual firearms experience. Also a lot of folks that don't understand basic ballistics at all.
Still watching this one, I'd love an ARMA light :coolsmiley: that gets better performance in multiplayer but has that ARMA feel. Actually I just want an ARMA that runs better. I wonder that no developer has taken up that opportunity, ARMA II and III have done very well, granted in great part due to DayZ but they seem to be stuck on an engine that is getting pretty creaky at this point in time. Surely it is possible to do what ARMA does with a more modern engine that runs better on modern computers?
The above photo looks like it is from one of the Brothers in Arms games, probably Hell's Highway. The proper way to fire a weapon through iron sights is to focus on the front sight. That means the rear sight, as well as the target will be blurred.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthewellarmedwoman.com%2Fimage%2Fdata%2Fthe-well-armed-woman-articles%2Fshooting-technique%2Fsights%2520view.jpg&hash=2fa03d3faa8b7a79aadb8b14fc2c2e17f8941d4d)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/V6pXyFPokRY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 06, 2016, 02:52:41 PM
The proper way to fire a weapon through iron sights is to focus on the front sight. That means the rear sight, as well as the target will be blurred.
It's a long time since I used any kind of firearm, but I would have thought that there must be some kind of transfer of focus during the aiming process. What I mean is that the target must be in focus at some point, as must the backsight and foresight, though I can see (ahem) that the final point of focus would be the foresight. I guess videogames have to abstract this in some way.
^See subheading B - Point of Focus.
http://www.bullseyepistol.com/chapter2.htm (http://www.bullseyepistol.com/chapter2.htm)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bullseyepistol.com%2Ff2-4c.gif&hash=985ec15dfd5269397d808e9a8e0aaa4cdceba5ae)
QuoteFigure 2-4c. Proper. Control alignment is precise. Focus limited to front sight only, renders the sights distinct and target indistinct and sight relationship can be controlled constantly.
1. It is imperative to maintain 'front slight point of focus" throughout the sighting and aiming of the pistol. The shooter must concentrate on maintaining the correct relationship between front and rear sight, and the point of focus must be on the front sight during the short period required to deliver the shot. If the focus is displaced forward, and the target is momentarily in clear focus, the ability of shooter to achieve correct sight alignment is jeopardized for that moment. Frequently, this is the moment that the pistol fires. A controlled, accurate shot is impossible under these conditions.
2. When the eye is focused on the target the relatively small movement of the arm appears magnified. However, when the eye is correctly focuses on the front sight this movement appears to have been reduced.
I miss Brothers In Arms.
FPS can be really nauseating especially now with better graphics. The whole screen is highly detailed.
Just listened to the grogcast about Squad, and am now reading this thread. How come no-one has mentioned America's Army? Is the latest iteration any good? I recall playing that a while back, and having lots of fun with it. Granted, the maps are a little bit small, but at least you don't have a dozen guys running around with sniper rifles.
I've never played America's Army, although it pops in my queue on Steam frequently.
Regardless, everyone's not running around with sniper rifles in Squad, either. When you spawn in you have to pick a role within the squad that isn't taken, and the kit is restricted by your role. Project Reality works in a similar manner.
Has Squad improved any since its initial EA release? Has any additional content been added? New maps? New modes? New weapons? Vehicles?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 03, 2016, 05:19:40 PM
Has Squad improved any since its initial EA release? Has any additional content been added? New maps? New modes? New weapons? Vehicles?
They added a couple of scopes I think, buts been focused on making sure the server doesnt run like garbage
Squad limits the roles in each squad nicely, so you usually end up with a good variety. There can't be more than two of any role, and snipers are actually limited across the entire team. So right now if you have 30+ players on your team there wil only be three snipers, regardless of how many squads there are.
Also, word is the next big patch will come out this week or next. I think vehicles are still out for now.
Looks like Americas Army became twitchy based on the vids.
I saw pics of Russians, did they add those ? Would be nice if there was more than just Taliban vs US.
Latest developer's update shows off some visual effects improvements, new map progress and upcoming weapons: https://joinsquad.com/readArticle?articleId=75 (https://joinsquad.com/readArticle?articleId=75).
Edit: V 4 has now been released and includes optics for Russian troops along with a number of other changes: http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/11691-alpha-4-update/ (http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/11691-alpha-4-update/).
Quote from: Skoop on February 04, 2016, 12:02:33 PM
I saw pics of Russians, did they add those ? Would be nice if there was more than just Taliban vs US.
Russians have been there ever since they went public. I think Separatists too.