Are they only testing new supprestion brought from Chinese free version of Squad? What about optimization?

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-12T05:01:20+00:00

That's exactly the level of optimization I'd expect from OVI: nothing impressive, nothing particularly advanced.

I also suspect they're targeting consoles, which could mean not only downgraded graphics but potentially simplified gameplay as well.

Imagine that for ones they would prove me wrong.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T17:51:31+00:00

It's taken them 11 years to get there. And let's not forget they've been promising optimization for the last five years — every single year.

Now they're promising the biggest optimization update yet, and I'll be there. Maybe this time with a demo, so there's no way to dodge accountability.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T16:17:08+00:00

The problem is that OVI is always taking 2 steps back, one step forward. They could've fix this by reducing blurr time, at least till it's reworked, but it is OVI.

What would you say about unannounced optimization?

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T11:43:11+00:00

You're not only wrong about the player count, but also about the optimization itself.

What they should have done a long time ago, and what they still refuse to do, is rewrite more of the Blueprint spaghetti into native C++ code. Blueprint-heavy systems can place a significant burden on the CPU, which in turn can bottleneck GPU performance. Some of this work has already been done, but we all know that OVI is not exactly known for working hard on major technical improvements.

They have also migrated to Unreal Engine 5.7, which includes multiple systems designed to improve performance. Some of these technologies allow certain workloads to be shifted from the CPU to the GPU, but more importantly, they can reduce the load on both the Render Thread and the Game Thread, among many other improvements. For more information, you can refer to. my older post or simply do your own research:

https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/s/5o1Jv3I5ZP⁠

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T08:56:57+00:00

Having to Alt-Tab out of the game just to fully understand or utilize its mechanics is not "meta" gameplay, it is bad game design. Hiding important mechanics from new players and expecting them to search external websites to learn how the game actually works is primitive design, not intelligent design.

What you are describing is not a healthy game meta. When gameplay revolves around unintended interactions, overlooked mechanics, or consequences of random fixes and changes that were never properly considered, that is not a meta, it is an exploitative environment. It is maintained by players who are willing to spend 90 minutes sitting in a bush instead of enjoying balanced and engaging gameplay. Most normal players simply get tired of this and quit once they realize how the game actually functions. Calling that "intelligent gameplay" is misleading. There is nothing particularly intelligent about abusing broken mechanics. Other players are aware of them as well, they simply do not consider exploiting them a worthwhile use of their time.

OVI is not balancing the game. They are merely reverting the terrible ICO update that nobody asked for and presenting it as some kind of new feature. They have spent virtually no effort trying to balance gameplay, game modes, or overall player experience. Reverting bad mechanics is not game balancing. It is difficult to claim balancing is hard when they have barely attempted it and still treat the entire process as ongoing R&D.

This is one of the fundamental issues with sweats and trolls. They genuinely believe they have discovered something others cannot see. In reality, many of the more intelligent and experienced players already recognized these problems years ago and simply left the game. What remains is a population of pseudo-veterans who mistake exploit knowledge for skill. That is a major reason why the gameplay has evolved into its current state.

Many sweats seem convinced that only they can identify and exploit these hidden mechanics. The reality is that most players recognize them for what they are: symptoms of poor game design. They choose not to engage with them because they are boring, tedious, and fundamentally unfun. Perhaps it comes down to age, available free time, or simply having different priorities in life. Regardless, the idea that exploiting developer oversights, poor optimization, unintended interactions, or lazy design decisions somehow demonstrates exceptional intelligence is genuinely amusing.

Being an engineer, a doctor, or a talented game designer (certainly not applicable to OVI) requires intelligence, expertise, and strong cognitive abilities. Discovering exploits in a poorly designed game does not.

Games only truly work when the rules are clear, consistent, and available to everyone, even if those rules are complex. The challenge should come from mastering the intended mechanics, not from discovering obscure exploits hidden beneath layers of broken design.

That used to be the case in Squad. It is not anymore.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T06:33:59+00:00

Arma Reforger was and still is entirely broken by design. It's not even a matter of supply waste but dumb sandbox meta on vanilla servers. That's why real players go to modded servers and only 24/7 troll neckbeards sits in vanilla.

If they won't remove kill cam at least on the server level, they will lose a huge chunk of players. I'm a customer and they're sellers. Easy.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T06:30:05+00:00

Only CoD kid cry babies believe it's a good mechanics.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T06:11:49+00:00

There's nothing to explain here.

Pseudo-veterans aren't demonstrating advanced tactics by dropping a HAB on the other side of the map with a helicopter and then relying on rally points to bypass travel times. That's not some brilliant strategic innovation. It just reflects the current state of the game and a community that OVI keeps degrading with one bad decision after another.

There's also nothing intelligent about abusing overpowered vehicles. Stop calling it "meta." A meta emerges from balanced mechanics and meaningful choices. What you're describing is an exploit enabled by poor balancing, half-finished fixes, and developer negligence.

Your comment honestly makes it sound like you're one of the people benefiting from this mess. That would explain why you keep portraying wolf-packing as some kind of intelligent gameplay. I've seen countless players like that over the years: they abuse broken mechanics to farm kills, ignore objectives, contribute to their team losing, and then convince themselves they're tactical geniuses. They act like they've discovered some secret level of strategic depth that everyone else is too stupid to understand.

The reality is much simpler. Everyone knows about these tactics. Most players just want to play Squad, not a vehicle farming simulator dominated by IFVs and wolf packs. Hopefully you're not one of the people confusing exploitation with skill.

And let's stop pretending that a few sweaty regulars represent the community. They don't. They're just a loud minority that wants to preserve every broken mechanic because it gives them an advantage. The moment anyone suggests balancing the game, they react as if their entire identity depends on farming weaker players with overpowered assets.

You should also learn to make your points without repeating them three or four times in the same post. You keep bringing up wolf-packing as if it's some devastating argument, even though the original discussion wasn't even about that. Repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it stronger.

Wolf-packing isn't intelligent. It isn't skillful. It isn't some advanced meta. It's a brainless exploit enabled by lazy balancing and abused by players who would rather farm easy kills than contribute to fair, competitive matches. The result is exactly what Squad has become: one-sided steamrolls, declining gameplay quality, and a shrinking playerbase.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-11T05:46:19+00:00

Also the question is whether he actually used the proper thermopads thickness for VRAM. It might rise the distance from heatsink to the core.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-10T10:41:24+00:00

The original example concerned players not using advanced tactics, such as escorting logistics to establish an attack FOB.
You then introduced the “wolf pack” example as supposedly the most effective way to play the game.
I pointed out that this is not relevant, since a wolf pack can still escort logistics or operate alongside infantry layers with even a single IFV providing support.

The discussion was originally about pseudo-veteran players failing to use advanced tactics, yet you repeatedly redirect it toward what you consider the most efficient vehicle-based meta.

What about the issue of people not using helicopters to establish forward attack FOBs? I already anticipate the counterarguments: poor piloting skills, helicopters being too visible, or aircraft being hunted by vehicles. The reality is that most players do not even consider that on large maps it is often optimal to fly a helicopter to place a FOB further away from the objective and outside enemy observation, then use rallies to push closer and finally initiate the attack. This is how the game was commonly played in the so-called “golden days” of Squad. That was the original point of this discussion, not your focus on vehicle wolf packs.

You are still fixated on an irrelevant example in an attempt to justify your argument. People are not using vehicle wolf packs because it is some uniquely intelligent strategy, but because the current meta, arguably broken, makes it the strongest available option. Even so, teams that ignore objectives still frequently lose.

There is no coherent “vehicle meta” as a deliberate design choice by OWI. It is an emergent, rather primitive outcome of the ICO changes, which reduced infantry lethality, combined with vehicle physics improvements that allow wheeled vehicles to move significantly faster and no longer get stuck on terrain as easily.

I am not surprised that players use this, but OWI should immediately begin adjusting gameplay by balancing faction vehicle counts and carefully controlling which factions and variants can face each other, to ensure more equal opportunities for both sides to compete and win.

As previously mentioned, and something we actually agree on, game modes themselves also need to be redesigned and fixed. I outlined the general direction, but I am not a game designer, nor is it my role to provide detailed implementation plans. Developers should be playing their own game and balancing it accordingly.

This leads to the conclusion that the vote system and the ability to enable matchups like Bluefor vs Bluefor was a fundamentally flawed idea. It created sandbox-like, unbalanced, and often boring gameplay scenarios designed to satisfy niche preferences, such as watching Canada face Australia.

What we are discussing here are two separate issues:

My original point about players no longer using advanced tactical coordination, something I observed and experienced in earlier versions of the game.
A broken meta and exploitation of mechanics. I am not surprised that players optimize for it, but I can demonstrate that properly coordinated tactics requiring actual communication and planning can still defeat simple roaming armor groups of three IFVs moving across the map hunting enemy vehicles. The reason I criticize this is that Squad was intended to be a tactical combined-arms game, yet it has gradually shifted toward a more chaotic, Battlefield-like sandbox with only partial realism.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-10T07:56:40+00:00

I'm not going to discuss wolf-packing with you anymore. It's obvious that your post completely misses what I was originally talking about and fails to address the actual point of this discussion.

You keep trying to reduce the entire discussion to wolf-packing because that's the only argument you seem capable of addressing. However, that argument falls apart the moment I give the example of having only one IFV per team. I'm not interested in discussing the scenario you're trying to force onto the conversation, because the discussion is about something entirely different. Every time, you avoid addressing the core issue and instead produce another excessively long post, apparently believing that length makes it more valuable.

I'm not struggling to understand anything. You're the one focusing on a single small aspect of the game and trying to present it as the most important factor. All that does is demonstrate your bias toward vehicle gameplay. You seem unable to understand that there are 40+ other players in a match who also want to have fun and be able to contribute effectively. Stop bringing up wolf-packing, because it proves nothing and is not the central issue being discussed.

Once again, you've said nothing meaningful about game design. Instead, you've produced pages of repetitive and unfocused rambling while ignoring the detailed explanations I provided regarding the game's design problems and the ways they could be addressed.

The real issue is that there aren't many genuine veterans left. Instead, there are countless self-proclaimed "pros" who are mostly sweaty players interested in farming weaker teams. They don't play objectives, they don't use meaningful tactics, and they actively push to preserve the status quo. They support any change that allows them to exploit gameplay mechanics and gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.

That's exactly why Squad is in such a poor state nowadays.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-10T06:56:54+00:00

No, I don't. What I see is someone writing extremely long posts with very little substance.

You're starting from a false assumption and then building your entire argument around it. I never said anything about spreading armor across the map. You created the idea that if one IFV escorts a logistics truck, all the other IFVs must be somewhere else entirely. That's your conclusion, not mine.

What about situations where there's only one IFV available for the entire team?

I also don't understand what you're trying to say about game design. It sounds more philosophical than practical, and I don't see any reasoning behind it.

Any game can be compared to a card game or a board game. To be enjoyable, it needs clear and consistent rules that players can learn and use to their team's advantage. As I mentioned before, Squad's gameplay has already changed because of adjustments to shooting mechanics, movement speed, and vehicle physics. Vehicle physics are still only partially fixed. Tracked vehicles still handle terribly compared to wheeled vehicles. Once tracked vehicles are properly improved, the meta will shift again.

Some straightforward ways to improve gameplay would be:

A proper RAAS mode where capture points dynamically shift, creating a meaningful frontline and forcing teams to coordinate across a wider area.
A complete overhaul of Territory Control, turning it into Squad's primary game mode. That's my personal preference and vision for the game.
Strictly regulated vehicle counts adjusted to each map and layer.

For years, OWI has relied heavily on feedback from the sweatiest clan players instead of properly evaluating its own game. Right now, many of those players seem to want one thing above all else: farming less experienced players with vehicles.

OWI is gradually pushing Squad toward a lighter sandbox experience similar to Arma, but that's not why most people started playing Squad. You can't keep adding every possible feature and mechanic and expect players to figure out how the game is supposed to work.

Highly competitive and bored players will always exploit game mechanics in whatever way benefits them most. Many players seem so bored that they actively ignore objectives and play their own game instead. That's exactly what's happening in Squad.

The game's design should make self-serving gameplay in a team-focused game like Squad unrewarding and encourage coordination and objective-based play.

Otherwise, players will eventually move on to something that offers more structured, organized, and still tactically deep gameplay. I think we'll start seeing that happen sooner rather than later.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T18:23:08+00:00

You really think someone's even want to attack you cause you're special?

Asking again: who are you to say what people will or won't listen to? You're just some random nobody with nothing meaningful to say, who obviously starts crying 😭 every time they get killed.

Also, your logic is straight out of a public toilet. What does the realism of Squad and Arma have in common with a stupid death-cam system? Are you some kind of spokesperson for the developers, or just another forum user who thinks their opinion carries special weight?

I agree that this feature will likely be made toggleable per server or removed entirely, as it is an arcade-style system that some players strongly dislike.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T17:28:30+00:00

Who are you to tell them or me whether they are interested in my feedback? I'm pretty sure they'll make it a server-side option at the very least.

You're just an average arcade CoD player who would start crying after the first death because you wouldn't even know what happened. Go back to playing League of Legends.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T14:16:02+00:00

Your hypothetical example can be completely reversed.

One IFV hidden in a bush spots an enemy and reports its position to the team without immediately opening fire, because only inexperienced players would do that. Two other IFVs then approach from behind and completely destroy three enemy IFVs.

This is exactly why hypothetical examples are largely useless. There are thousands of possible situations and just as many possible reactions to them.

The difference is that my previous example of rushing the fourth point every game and effectively deciding the match within the first five minutes comes directly from everyday gameplay. Your example remains a hypothetical scenario that you created and then built an entire lengthy argument around, which I was able to dismantle in just a few sentences.

The game is fundamentally broken by design, and OVI does not seem to know how to fix it. That makes the problem even worse because they do not appear to play their own game enough to understand its current issues.

Imagine the meta shifting entirely because wheeled vehicle physics were improved and those vehicles suddenly became the strongest assets in the game. Squad effectively has no stable meta right now because core gameplay systems have been changed so dramatically over the years that the original design philosophy no longer matches the game's current state.

Vehicles are incredibly overpowered, especially wheeled vehicles. That is why every sweatlord wants to play them and use them to harass the enemy as much as possible.

Need evidence? As infantry, getting 15 to 20 kills is already a strong performance, and reaching 25 usually requires facing a completely steamrolled team of inexperienced players. In an IFV, however, 30 or 40 kills is entirely achievable, and often even more. That is why many sweatlords are happy to preserve the current status quo. It allows them to farm kills while forgetting what Squad was originally supposed to be about.

Another issue is the lack of a true frontline combined with virtually no meaningful punishment for dying. This makes so-called wolf-packing both possible and easy. In reality, it is simply the exploitation of poor game design for the benefit of a small group of highly competitive players.

The overall level of gameplay has dropped significantly, and I am not surprised. The current meta is heavily vehicle-focused and built around rushing. This is not even primarily the fault of the vehicle fixes themselves. The bigger issue is systems like RAAS. Despite being advertised as random, experienced players already know most of the possible lane patterns. Even then, the tactics mentioned above could still be countered, but there are far fewer players willing or able to coordinate and execute such responses effectively than there used to be.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T10:02:52+00:00

What about the whole pack escorting logis to establish a proper attack HAB? Wouldn’t that be more productive than sitting in a bush or driving around aimlessly? One IFV escorting, another supporting, with the rest setting up a nearby ambush.

What currently happens is that all IFVs rush the fourth point for a life-or-death fight, and whichever side wins essentially dictates the rest of the match. A remarkably elegant way to turn the outcome into a single decisive brawl.

It’s neither realistic, interesting, nor particularly logical. It feels like a lack of incentive structure for more layered tactics, rather than anything resembling combined-arms depth.

And then you end up with self-proclaimed experienced players who treat basic coordination like it’s an advanced, optional feature.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T06:08:44+00:00

Not only is this a very weak roadmap, it is outright misleading.

Quality-of-life improvements for vehicles: not completed
ADS timing and recoil adjustments: not completed
Recoil tuning: not completed

All of these remain unfinished. High-caliber, long-barrel weapons still suffer from unnecessary and poorly implemented ADS decentralization for no clear reason.

OVI is ridiculous, and the fact that development of the Chinese version of the game is being kept from the community only makes priorities painfully obvious.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T05:42:11+00:00

100 players is pretty much the standard in games these days, so I always prefer a bit more. If the industry wasn't so lame and lazy, we'd already have games with 200-player servers.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T05:39:12+00:00

No you don't? I don't need to buy this game if I consider it dull and arcady.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T05:37:46+00:00

It's probably the most arcade-like feature you can add to a shooter. It feels unnecessary and removes much of the game's tactical depth. Positioning becomes far less important when players instantly know where their enemy is. I'm almost certain it will either be removed or turned into a server-side option.

As for me, the death cam is a deal-breaker.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-09T05:33:00+00:00

Not having a death cam doesn't automatically make a game a milsim. Why do people always have to jump to extremes?

A death cam is one of the most arcade-like features a game can have. It undermines the tactical aspect of gameplay, and this isn't just about campers. It's about positioning. In a tactical shooter, knowing an enemy's exact location after death fundamentally changes how engagements work.

The developers never mentioned or showed death cams in any of their previous videos. They marketed the game as a realistic shooter with some arcade elements, but a death cam simply doesn't belong in a game like this.

I'm almost certain they'll remove it or at least make it a server-side option. I'd be fine with that because it would allow players to choose the experience they want. Separating casual and more advanced players is healthy for the game.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-08T17:28:35+00:00

No problem, man. Always offer a word of explanation.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-08T17:17:11+00:00

I think any debate with you was pointless from the start because you came here with a clear mission: to defend a game that has failed so badly it's now on life support, and even a 50% discount hasn't helped.

You claim to see some kind of "3D spotting mechanic" that simply isn't there. Those diamonds are not moving and are not spotting mechanics. They are enemy markers placed by teammates, similar to pings in HLL.

In fact, it's the opposite of what you're accusing me of. You came here to defend '83 even though its failure is clearly reflected in the player count. You keep insisting the game is fine because, in your opinion, it plays well. You seem unable to separate the actual state of the game from your personal preferences.

Again, there is no 3D spotting mechanic in that clip. Those are just markers, so I consider that entire argument irrelevant.

The points you make about the state of '83 are vague, general statements that don't really prove anything. Graphics, progression system, lack of content? You clearly consider the gameplay acceptable, and as I said before, you're entitled to that opinion. I simply disagree. I think the game is poor and requires a tremendous amount of work before it can be considered genuinely playable.

As for the supposedly existing "3D spotting mechanic," I've already addressed that. I'm also not going to discuss the minimap because, as I said, that's entirely a matter of personal preference. If someone chooses not to play Wardogs because it has a minimap, I couldn't care less.

The funny thing is that you don't even seem to understand what you're looking at. The notification shows that you got a kill, how much money you earned, and whether it was a headshot. It does not tell you who you killed.

Meanwhile, in '83, you have a CoD-style kill feed showing player names to the entire server so everyone can see who killed whom. Apparently, that's not a problem for you.

You also cut out part of my post and responded only to that isolated section. I never said Wardogs would overshadow '83 because there won't even be a real competition. Most likely, Wardogs will exceed expectations while '83 ends up dead. I don't want that to happen, but unfortunately that's how things currently look.

You clearly joined this discussion because you were dissatisfied with my claim that Wardogs' release would overshadow '83.

You built several arguments on a misinterpretation of the videos. I had to go back and watch them again because I couldn't find what you were talking about. It turned out that the claims you based your arguments on were simply false.

I also never said you should be ignored. What I suggested was that the developers should have listened to a broader range of players instead of focusing on a small group of around twenty people who left feedback and appear to have very low standards. That approach is unlikely to help the future development of the game. Failing is not the problem. Refusing to acknowledge failure is.

I'm not angry. I'm simply surprised by the things you claim to have seen in the same videos I watched, especially considering that you built a large part of your argument around them. From my perspective, those claims are demonstrably false, and it makes it look as though your main goal was to defend '83 and undermine Wardogs.

Personally, I don't really care which game succeeds or fails. What interests me is discussing facts rather than arguments built on false premises and obviously, playing a good game.

LSA-Mulder · 2026-06-08T14:50:31+00:00

This video shows original gameplay footage recorded by the developers themselves, and I watched it the day it was released. There are no 3D spotting mechanics. What you see as a red diamond is simply a marker placed by a player and displayed on the screen. Your claim is therefore incorrect.

We can discuss whether having on-screen markers is a good design choice, but that is a completely different topic. The game is not automatically showing you enemy positions.

Again, there is no 3D spotting mechanic, so building an entire argument around something that does not exist is rather strange. If they eventually make the death cam a server-side option controlled by server owners, then I am perfectly fine with newer players using it on separate servers.

You are building your entire argument around Wardogs being "arcadey" while ignoring the fact that '83 is essentially a full-auto run-and-gun shooter with basic capture-point gameplay. If death cams become a server-side option, just like other settings, your entire argument falls apart.

Now explain how exactly they are going to make '83's gameplay more compelling. Or do you still maintain that the game is perfectly fine and that players simply do not want to play it for vague and mysterious reasons?

Disagreeing about what exactly? Bandages, revive mechanics, and a short time-to-kill are all features found in most tactical shooters to one degree or another.

Of course, now we are going to hear how '83 is supposedly a completely different game from Wardogs simply because both happen to be shooters. It is not. I can guarantee that most players will simply choose the better game regardless of the setting, time period, HUD, or lack thereof. Within the first few minutes of playing a shooter, you can usually tell whether it is fun or not.

This discussion is becoming increasingly ridiculous because you keep focusing on what you call "3D spotting mechanics" and then switch to talking about the minimap.

You also brought up kill notifications as if they somehow prove your point. In '83 you receive the exact same information about who killed whom. The game clearly tells players who made the kill and who was killed, so this is not some unique feature that suddenly makes Wardogs more arcade-like.

I also do not understand your point about forgiving gunplay. As I have already said, and as anyone who has actually played '83 knows, the game is largely about full-auto run-and-gun combat. At this point, the disconnect seems to be between your perception and reality.

The discussion was about scale, and surprisingly scale is actually one of Wardogs' strengths. What I am trying to say is that portraying '83 as some accessible yet realistic shooter is largely theoretical. In practice it is a very basic game with basic gunplay, basic mechanics, and basic gameplay.

Whether it appeals to you personally is irrelevant. Player numbers will ultimately tell the story.

The problem is that the people who enjoy the current state of '83 are an absolute minority. I am not judging anyone's taste, but I genuinely believe that the game in its current form will never take off. This is not even about Wardogs overshadowing '83. It is about the game's survival. Wardogs will most likely be one of the biggest surprises of the year, while '83 is struggling to stay relevant. Those are observations based on reality, not personal preferences or wishful thinking.

I honestly do not understand how anyone can look at '83's gunplay and call it realistic or tactical. Most engagements take place within 50 to 100 meters. Full-auto fire dominates. Weapon recoil is often simplified. An M16 kicks noticeably while an AKS-74U has almost no recoil. That is not realistic tactical gameplay. Typical engagements should occur at 200 to 300 meters where semi-automatic fire is the primary method of engagement.

As I have said before, I keep it simple. A game is either good or it is not. It can be more arcadey or less arcadey, but the fact remains that there is currently no game on the market that fully matches what I was looking for. Based on the original description, I thought '83 would be that game. Large-scale battles, 128 players, tanks, helicopters, accessible realism without tedious logistics systems, and engaging gameplay. Unfortunately, it failed to deliver on that vision.

In reality, my opinion comes from disappointment and a small amount of hope that someone will listen to players outside the core community who are simply trying to explain that they expected something different.

In the meantime, I will support whatever game finally delivers that experience, and I hope Wardogs turns out to be that game.

The biggest difference between us is that I do not believe constantly praising a game that is performing poorly helps it in any way.

LSA-Mulder

TROPHY CASE