Progression system?

[h8koN]

What is the general consensus on this? Personally I would love to have a rewarding progression system that allows us to rank up and have emblems to show for it. It just adds that extra incentive and factor to the game. It would have been pretty cool if we could have more customisation options on the soldiers so that we can personalise them a bit more. Obviously nothing over the top that breaks the immersion and makes it look like a game of Fortnite, but some tad changes like changing your helmet, vests, etc.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by Grinspoon:

its not the kind of game for this CSGO/COD ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥! I´m sorry to say it that way, but ♥♥♥♥ like this get the overhand

Just because a game has a progression system and an option to personalise your soldier it does not mean it is Call of Duty and CS:GO. I do not see how either of the two would ruin the identity/integrity of the game.

[2Tall_Chickenchunk_bandit]

Thats the thing. Squad stands out for its realism and tactics. I actively serve in the US Army and we cant "customize" our gear our weapons. Its standard issue and thats it. So if Squad is focused on realism, why would they add a customization option? Then you'd have dudes running around with completely different gear on. It would break the immersion.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by Grinspoon:

Originally posted by Mads:

Just because a game has a progression system and an option to personalise your soldier it does not mean it is Call of Duty and CS:GO. I do not see how either of the two would ruin the identity/integrity of the game.

simply because this game is about teamwork communication and by that strategic overwhelm your opponent and not character customization and all that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. for example its important to verify a sapper as sapper etc. i wouldnt play the card but jesus you got only 20 hours in Squad buy that game probably on wednesday and allready try to press your stamp on it, thats why most older players dont like newbies anymore

Having a progression system and customisation options for your soldiers to personalise the experience is not mutually exclusive with the game being about teamwork and communication. You can have both.

First of all, I have played Squad since 2017 on a separate account. Second of all, that statement of yours, is just evidence as to why a lot of new players dislike the Squad community. It is filled with entitled, grumpy old geezers like yourself that reject any new players to the game and their opinions. Take your entitlement elsewhere. You are not special because you have hundreds of hours on a game. Trust me.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

Thats the thing. Squad stands out for its realism and tactics. I actively serve in the US Army and we cant "customize" our gear our weapons. Its standard issue and thats it. So if Squad is focused on realism, why would they add a customization option? Then you'd have dudes running around with completely different gear on. It would break the immersion.

Sure, a fair point. I still think we could at least have a progression system, though. Maybe that is just me.

[2Tall_Chickenchunk_bandit]

And a progession system also defeats the purpose of the game. Your supposed to work as a SQUAD/team to accomplish the mission/objective. That means no lone-wolfing. Progression systems focus more on a single individual and his accomplishments. The game doesnt focus on just singular players. Its a military simulation game.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

And a progession system also defeats the purpose of the game. Your supposed to work as a SQUAD/team to accomplish the mission/objective. That means no lone-wolfing. Progression systems focus more on a single individual and his accomplishments. The game doesnt focus on just singular players. Its a military simulation game.

Disagree, that entirely depends on how the developers structure the progression system. They could very easily structure it so that it rewards and incentivises teamwork. It does not have to be similar to systems in games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. Also Squad is not a military simulation game, it has resemblance to it yes, but at the end of the day it is an FPS game that focuses on tactics. It literally says in the bio of the game: "It bridges the large gap between arcade shooter and military simulation." Aka, it is neither of the two, but something inbetween.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by Grinspoon:

I dont say i´m special,the only thing that borders me and all the other older players is that mindset you guys had, join a discord talk to experience people and by that learn the game instead of asking for ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ like a pink weapon skin and only care about Kill/Death Ratio by using big boy gear like a heavy mg heavy AT or the classic Sniper Einstein.

If you had comprehension and actually read what I said then you would have known that I clearly stated it would have to be "realistic" customisation options and not pink AK-47's and cowboy hats. I have played this game since 2017 - albeit on another account - and I strongly dislike how a lot of "veterans" behave. They are extremely entitled. It is as if it is their game and only their game. How dare anyone new come to Squad with their suggestions! Give me a break, man.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by Grinspoon:

Originally posted by Mads:

Disagree, that entirely depends on how the developers structure the progression system. They could very easily structure it so that it rewards and incentivises teamwork. It does not have to be similar to systems in games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. Also Squad is not a military simulation game, it has resemblance to it yes, but at the end of the day it is an FPS game that focuses on tactics.

In Squad you play the average GI Joe who uses standardized equipment, and not an Cpt. Price god sakes

Read what I said before you type out your two cents that reeks of entitlement. I agreed with @2tall_Playz that okay, perhaps it is better to just have standard issued gear bc/ of the immersion and realism. But I would still have liked a progression system in this game after 3+ years of playing it.

[2Tall_Chickenchunk_bandit]

Originally posted by Mads:

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

And a progession system also defeats the purpose of the game. Your supposed to work as a SQUAD/team to accomplish the mission/objective. That means no lone-wolfing. Progression systems focus more on a single individual and his accomplishments. The game doesnt focus on just singular players. Its a military simulation game.

Disagree, that entirely depends on how the developers structure the progression system. They could very easily structure it so that it rewards and incentivises teamwork. It does not have to be similar to systems in games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. Also Squad is not a military simulation game, it has resemblance to it yes, but at the end of the day it is an FPS game that focuses on tactics.

And thats where i disagree. Squad is more realistic and tactically demanding than ArmA 3. Its not just an FPS. It is a Simulation. The Ballistics, the roles inside the squads, the mechanics of the vehicles, the optics on the weapon systems. The Devs literally studied real life militarys while developing the game. Its meant to simulate a real life skirmish between 2 different factions. the game literally REQUIRES you work as a team to even remotely have a chance at winning. Sure, Alpha squad could be racking up kills left and right, but Bravo squad just lost a key objective, letting Alpha squad get swarmed. You cant lone wolf this game. Thats why its not just an FPS. It requires players to stop and think before making decisons.

[2Tall_Chickenchunk_bandit]

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

Originally posted by Mads:

Disagree, that entirely depends on how the developers structure the progression system. They could very easily structure it so that it rewards and incentivises teamwork. It does not have to be similar to systems in games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. Also Squad is not a military simulation game, it has resemblance to it yes, but at the end of the day it is an FPS game that focuses on tactics.

And thats where i disagree. Squad is more realistic and tactically demanding than ArmA 3. Its not just an FPS. It is a Simulation. The Ballistics, the roles inside the squads, the mechanics of the vehicles, the optics on the weapon systems. The Devs literally studied real life militarys while developing the game. Its meant to simulate a real life skirmish between 2 different factions. the game literally REQUIRES you work as a team to even remotely have a chance at winning. Sure, Alpha squad could be racking up kills left and right, but Bravo squad just lost a key objective, letting Alpha squad get swarmed. You cant lone wolf this game. Thats why its not just an FPS. It requires players to stop and think before making decisons.

And you can literally go under the "Simulation" tab in the store, and Squad is 2nd on the list. Steam even recognizes it as a Military Simulation Game.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

Originally posted by Mads:

Disagree, that entirely depends on how the developers structure the progression system. They could very easily structure it so that it rewards and incentivises teamwork. It does not have to be similar to systems in games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. Also Squad is not a military simulation game, it has resemblance to it yes, but at the end of the day it is an FPS game that focuses on tactics.

And thats where i disagree. Squad is more realistic and tactically demanding than ArmA 3. Its not just an FPS. It is a Simulation. The Ballistics, the roles inside the squads, the mechanics of the vehicles, the optics on the weapon systems. The Devs literally studied real life militarys while developing the game. Its meant to simulate a real life skirmish between 2 different factions. the game literally REQUIRES you work as a team to even remotely have a chance at winning. Sure, Alpha squad could be racking up kills left and right, but Bravo squad just lost a key objective, letting Alpha squad get swarmed. You cant lone wolf this game. Thats why its not just an FPS. It requires players to stop and think before making decisons.

I agree with you on that. Squad leans more towards a simulation type of game rather than an arcade shooter, however it is not explicitly a simulation game. It says in the bio as well that it is a game that "bridges the large gap between arcade shooter and military simulation" which quite literally means it is something between the two. I personally struggle to see how a progression system - done right and fabricated FOR Squad - ruins that identity or integrity of the game. You could very easily implement a progression system that rewards teamwork and communication, rather than just kills.

I never said I wanted this game to have aspects of it that focuses on lone-wolfing; I said I wanted a progression system. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

[h8koN]

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

And thats where i disagree. Squad is more realistic and tactically demanding than ArmA 3. Its not just an FPS. It is a Simulation. The Ballistics, the roles inside the squads, the mechanics of the vehicles, the optics on the weapon systems. The Devs literally studied real life militarys while developing the game. Its meant to simulate a real life skirmish between 2 different factions. the game literally REQUIRES you work as a team to even remotely have a chance at winning. Sure, Alpha squad could be racking up kills left and right, but Bravo squad just lost a key objective, letting Alpha squad get swarmed. You cant lone wolf this game. Thats why its not just an FPS. It requires players to stop and think before making decisons.

And you can literally go under the "Simulation" tab in the store, and Squad is 2nd on the list. Steam even recognizes it as a Military Simulation Game.

You can also find Hentai Sniper: World War 2 under the tag simulation. It means nothing.

[2Tall_Chickenchunk_bandit]

Originally posted by Mads:

Originally posted by 2tall_Playz:

And thats where i disagree. Squad is more realistic and tactically demanding than ArmA 3. Its not just an FPS. It is a Simulation. The Ballistics, the roles inside the squads, the mechanics of the vehicles, the optics on the weapon systems. The Devs literally studied real life militarys while developing the game. Its meant to simulate a real life skirmish between 2 different factions. the game literally REQUIRES you work as a team to even remotely have a chance at winning. Sure, Alpha squad could be racking up kills left and right, but Bravo squad just lost a key objective, letting Alpha squad get swarmed. You cant lone wolf this game. Thats why its not just an FPS. It requires players to stop and think before making decisons.

I agree with you on that. Squad leans more towards a simulation type of game rather than an arcade shooter, however it is not explicitly a simulation game. It says in the bio as well that it is a game that "bridges the large gap between arcade shooter and military simulation" which quite literally means it is something between the two. I personally struggle to see how a progression system - done right and fabricated FOR Squad - ruins that identity or integrity of the game. You could very easily implement a progression system that rewards teamwork and communication, rather than just kills.

I never said I wanted this game to have aspects of it that focuses on lone-wolfing; I said I wanted a progression system. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

Makes sense. But whats the need for a progression system? The game is fine without one. The game was designed not to have a ranking system.

[Opachki]

bro i just want a damn red dot on conventional factions instead of iron sights, other than that progression wouldnt bother me one bit tbh

[2Tall_Chickenchunk_bandit]

Originally posted by Opachki:

bro i just want a damn red dot on conventional factions instead of iron sights, other than that progression wouldnt bother me one bit tbh

Conventional factions like the terrorist? Rebels?