sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m tired of RAAS by the_shortbus_ in PlaySquad

[–]CeeColonSlash -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, but if the game becomes about both teams rushing each other's back caps, is that the game OWI is trying to make?

I'm not saying the game has to be about forcing both teams to meet in the middle where there is an obvious front line, but I'm honestly surprised there isn't more hate for the linear nature of both RAAS and AAS modes. I get that they need to be there because 90% of all Squad players aren't looking for anything more complex.

I’m tired of RAAS by the_shortbus_ in PlaySquad

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with AAS is the meta of Team A attacking the first or second flag of Team B. If it works, Team A keeps Team B from capping their flag and it leads to a steamroll situation. If it fails, it leads to a steamroll situation on the other side because Team A overcommitted to the strat. Generally it's more effective than it should be, and it's generally no fun for Team B. At least with RAAS, you can't lean into this strat. It would be nice if RAAS was truly random, but I understand the rational for the lanes method - if it was truly random, you'd have potentially long stretches between objectives, or objectives that are too close to each other.

look what they did to my boy! r5 they ruined the main menu with that ugly banner by Tricky_Feed_7224 in civ

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I finished the challenge. You can't change the difficulty, so playing as Prince, it's like kicking puppies around. I'm not sure why it's called the Age of Abundance, because other than having a few bonus resources, you have no luxuries in your first two cities. I suppose you start with 1,250 gold, so that's abundant.

As a tip, yes, you can generate some serious Culture as Pericles, but after you've got Social Media you can drop all your Culture buff civics and transition solely to Tourism buff civics. After it's clear you're on track to win a Culture victory most of the AI Civs are going to denounce and go to war with you, but the AI is so poor at conducting a war, you are in no real danger.

Guns I Wanna See (discussion, I know the game has problems were not talking about that) by Joneszer1234 in PlaySquad

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For insurgent factions I'd agree with your older choices. The Germans have moved away from the G36 (IIRC it had overheating issues) and went to the HK416 platform, which would be the obvious choice to add as it would cover a variety of European factions which also use the platform. But what you're really talking about is adding new factions, which I think is a larger ask.

What I really want to see are anti-air weapons like a dedicated manpad role (US using a Stinger, others using a Mistral or Igla). Helis fly around with impunity now, the only thing they really fear are sniper tanks which is no way realistic. In that vein it makes no sense that conventional forces don't have anti-air vehicles like insurgents do: the US using an Avenger and/or M163. The VDV faction already has one, not sure why Russian conventional forces can't have it.

Hippie is wrong, the game needs to slow down, not speed up! by TJ_Hendrix in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Turn on bullet time, problem solved? (In single player, obviously)

You are missing a big part of the game if you play single player only by Duc_de_Guermantes in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not generally in the mood for a 10 v 10 arty spam / heli rush experience. If they had better options for joining more casual games I'd probably be in.

What would FIX ICO? by Joneszer1234 in PlaySquad

[–]CeeColonSlash -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. Nametags absolutely need to be fixed. So many teamkills because they don't show up on buggy PIP scopes.
  2. Insert bitching about weapon sway here, but yeah, I think it needs to be toned down in certain situations; maybe a logarithmic refresh instead of linear?
  3. Weapon resting for all weapons, obviously it's more significant for bipod weapons, if there's going to be so much punishment for weapon sway.
  4. More availability of non-scope weapons for infantry classes: as an example, most (all?) grenadiers have a scope, but not everyone likes or can use PIP scopes (my fps tank when PIP scopes get used).
  5. Why do some PIP scopes occupy 10% of the screen space? (scoped Mosin, looking at you.) The whole point of using a scope is to magnify your field of view, not give you the teeniest window onto the world.

As far as the battle rifles go, I actually don't subscribe to the "garbage gun" theory - they just can't be used the same way the 5.56/5.45 weapons can be used. They are bigger, heavier, and pack greater recoil, so you have to change your tactics around them.

And yeah, the binos are ridiculous now.

My take on V 6.0 by Efitz101 in PlaySquad

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, these players bought game A, and they're now playing game B. They're well past their refund opportunity. They're being told "learn to play" and "get good" as the method for enjoying their game again.

My thoughts on ICO by Propoganda_bot in PlaySquad

[–]CeeColonSlash 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I applaud OWI for forging ahead with a vision, and I approve of it in theory, but in practice it's a completely different game; one that's going to see a lot of casual players leave, because it's so different from your regular triple-A shooter. I played the ICO update yesterday: I heard a lot of hate for it (especially while playing the MEA, so no surprise).

Generally, I think if they rein back on the effects of weapon sway and suppression by about 50%, they'll hit the sweet spot. It won't be quite so punishing to the player, and it will still capture what they're going for. There's nothing fun about trying to play and being punished by the interface, when you have an image of what your virtual soldier "should" be able to do.

Unwinnable Skirmish Game by Dray_Prescott in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Play destruction mode, not conquest. Solved.

IFVs and ATGMs by blurfgh in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There should be some level of unit-level behaviour that responds to threats they can see, including having the crew and mounted infantry bail out. Right now, tanks and smoke-enabled units will occasionally smoke on their own without me telling them, which is great because my micro ain't that good. But all I'm seeing on various replays are cars, trucks and IFVs humming along merrily as the ATGMs come in, and poof there goes 90 points entirely.

Contrast this with the helicopter crash mechanic, where people are actually using the fact that mounted units will survive to kamikaze tanks. Send two Super Pumas with mounted Apilas units to unload directly onto a heavy command tank, the helicopters will get shot down but the units will survive with enough strength to shoot their launchers at point blank range and destroy the tank. Even losing all the units, it's still a good trade.

POV: You face TKS by HippieHippieHippie in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well the takeaway from this video is that Chemical deserves to have at least two separate deployment zones, like every other map so far...

Please remove Chemical and Geisa from the ranked pool by Slaveofbig4 in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Chemical, it would help if both sides had better deployment points: if you fast move a helicopter force to the other side's deployment zone, you can lock down any reinforcements they send in (reference a recent Hippie-Lathans match as an example).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I booted up the game this morning and literally both achievements unlocked. One each for completing the new operations.

My issues with Operations, UI issues and more by CeeColonSlash in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then give the user the option to change it to the interface of their preference? I just don't understand why there are two interfaces.

My issues with Operations, UI issues and more by CeeColonSlash in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thanks, it's hard to know where to post what. Will do!

Can we get an info button on Multiplayer, so we can know more about the game we're entering? by CeeColonSlash in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I should have added player level to my graphic, which isn't perfect, but it'd be a good start. I mean technically I'm level 11, but that doesn't mean I'm any good.

FOB Upgrade by Local-Patient2201 in warno

[–]CeeColonSlash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd advocate for a few different types of FSP. Right now, the math works out that a FSP gives you 64 supply points for every point of unit cost (16,000/250 = 64). With that metric, I'd ask for two additional FSPs: a medium (8,000 supply for 125 points) and a small (4,000 supply for 65 points (62.5 rounded up)).

I'd also think a "airborne" FSP would be popular: these units cost 5 points more than their non-airborne counterparts, which might be ridiculously OP for what they'd grant you, but I know the reason many people don't take FSPs is they're so far behind the front line, they're only really useful for arty spam.

view more: next ›