New Update, 10 Years too late?

[BatSithCrazy]

The erosion of the veteran player base in squad is a mission accomplished. So, does this new update really matter?

While making a "spiritual" successor to Project Reality, Squad devs decided mid development to quality make a U turn, and go in a casual direction, attracting new players initially.

In the process alienating the dedicated and passionate player base that have been supporting Squad from the start.

Veterans who prefer a slower FPS experience feelt neglected and ignored, leading to a decline in the overall community engagement and a loss of long-term players.

Squad heavily relies on teamwork, communication, and coordination among players to achieve objectives.

Casualizing the game has led to a shift towards more individualistic gameplay, with less focus on team-based strategies. Which has disrupted the cooperative nature of the game and make it less engaging for veterans who appreciate the tactical challenges and rewards of teamwork.

Question is, why would a veteran player come back, and support an oversaturated infestation of COD players in squad? When I can boot up ARMA and not deal with the headache of COD “SQUAD” players.

You slowed down the game “mechanics”, yeah. But you haven’t slowed down the faster-paced-mindset of your players. A slower game of Squad requires a significant investment of time and effort to master, its mechanics and gameplay dynamics, who is left to teach all that?

Casualization of squad has done so much harm, its diluted coordination, communication, and tactical decision-making to a point of where it’s compromised the essence of Squad, making it less important to connect with other players.

To be honest, the flat learning curve of casual Squad, and simplification of its mechanics, has diminished the sense of progression and achievement, which brings a loss of motivation to teach others. Knowing the developers can pivot at any point in their development life chicle.

What if next month, or year from now, somewhere down the road, they decide we want to go back to being casual again?

…All I’m saying is that ARMA and its player base doesn’t have a distorted imagine of itself, Squad, does. The upcoming update confirm one thing only, how fractured it’s game is and it's player base.

Why would anyone old, or new coming into squad want to deal with that?

[fyb]

the ones saying they haven't played since 2015 and will come back excited will play for 1 month and abandon it again because they don't like the game and if they did they would have stuck with it these years. 2015 squad is a glorified alpha build so when those players go finally squad is back to how it should be is just ludicrous. squad didn't exist as squad then. sorry that was 9 years ago you had your chance, its over johnny.

but when those old players leave again we'll be forced to deal with the mess they made, will take another 10 patches of tweeking because owi HAS NO IDEA WHAT THEY WANT THIS GAME TO BE and change it faster than a bipolar housewife. imagine your favorite game and they keep ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ IT UP every other month in major ways? You don't have to imagine it because its every multiplayer game you have played and will be playing for the rest of your life. they can't leave anything alone.

lets get the performance and fps taken care of before another major overhaul THEN you can ruin it.

[killertowfoo]

I've played every major FPS. Despite Squad having 0 progression or games stats, I have more hours in Squad than any other game. The vast majority of those hours were played from 2017-2021 (during Squad's prime). Meanwhile the combined hours of every CoD and BF is probably half of what I've spent in Squad. Why would this be?

Complexity+novelty- meaning the likelihood that your current match will play out differently from your previous match and that trying something different may lead to better results.

Since 2020/2021, Squad progressively made updates that were designed to appeal to CoD/BF crowd. This led to basically 1 effective meta strategy and 1 effective tactic: HAB spam+zerg rushing objectives. An intelligent human can only do so much HAB spam+zerg objectives before they realize this is boring. That is why any changes to revert the game away from HAB spam meta+zerging will add longevity to the game.

The update may not fix the HAB spam, but it will likely make zerging ineffective. Even the hint of Squad changing back to what it once was, will draw back former players as there is no alternative. There are hundreds of alternative CoD/BF clones, but there are near 0 games that were or are like Squad in its prime.

[Southpaw]

I understand both sides. As someone whom was a kickstarter and player since the dawn of Squad I did not played Squad after the FUBAR updates, and the influx of brain-dead bored COD/BF players.

Hope this update flushes out those pesky turds. But like you said, it maybe to late for most Squad day-1 players.

Time will tell.

[KrayZJool]

Once people (Squad leaders) realize you can win maps by defending, wasting less assets, having good supply lines and taking it slow, it might change the routine a bit.

Then again, is there really an incentive for actually winning?.
If you win 257-0, or 4-0 tickets... does anything really change?.
You don't get rewarded for playing good, other than voip spams of "Yeah!"

So we're back in the "♥♥♥♥ it ima just do what feels cool ingame" type of gameplay.
Rarely do i get people on the squad who have a PR mindset. Someone who's willing to drive a logi or shovel bases for an hour or so without even seeing an enemy.

Squad simply can't keep continuing to be a "First person shooter" if they want it to resemble anything close to PR.

Hell, for all i care remove the kills/deaths from the scoreboard and replace them with how many tickets you took from the enemy and how many tickets you lost for your team.

[BatSithCrazy]

For me, Squad has always been about striking a balance between realism and fun. I enjoy the slower, more methodical gameplay that allows for strategic planning and teamwork. It's the thrill of coordinating with my squadmates, communicating effectively, and executing well-coordinated maneuvers that keeps me coming back for more.

The casual nature of Squad has been one of its defining features, for over a decade, I understand that part. It has made the game accessible to players of various skill levels, allowing newcomers to learn and grow while providing a space for veterans to showcase their expertise. I believe that maintaining this accessibility is crucial for the long-term health and growth of the game.

Squad has always struck a chord with me because it strikes that perfect balance between realism and enjoyment, less so on the realism part for a few years now, but it still offers a unique experience that combines the best aspects of tactical gameplay with the fun and excitement of an action-packed shooter.

I understand that some players crave a more hardcore experience, and I respect their preferences. However, I believe that we can find ways to cater to both desires without compromising the core essence of Squad.

Perhaps introducing specific servers or game modes for those seeking a more intense challenge would be a better approach, allowing both casual and hardcore players to coexist within the same community.

I have always been a proponent of having two Squad modes, one "Realism" and the other for "BF4/COD" casuals. Trying to cater to both audiences is a nightmare in one game, so why not split it into two modes and let the player choose their experience. I guess “MODS tried to do it, but it’s been tested and not really working out.

Ultimately, Squad's strength lies in its diversity and inclusivity. It's the game that has brought us together and allowed us to forge friendships and unforgettable memories.

[Namdaets]

Squad is at peak popularity right now, with a record 10k average players. For the first few years of early access, average player count barely hit 1-2k. The veteran player base representing those who no longer play the game are a tiny minority of the current, active player base (peak player count in the last 30 days is 22k).

This update matters for the tens of thousands of current players. I'm sure it will indeed bring back numerous veteran players as well. Right now is the perfect time for the much-needed, often-requested Project Reality combat update.

It is never too late to course-correct and make the right choice.

[Pan_de]

Not sure what you mean. Squad has always been rather non arcady. I mean cmon project reality is far from being realistic compared to squad.

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by BatSithCrazy:

I have always been a proponent of having two Squad modes, one "Realism" and the other for "BF4/COD" casuals. Trying to cater to both audiences is a nightmare in one game, so why not split it into two modes and let the player choose their experience.

If they stayed on course with what was intended for Squad there wouldn't be such a debate. It would just be "realism" and hardcore. But OWI was going for big bucks in terms of large playerbase and succeeded with an influx of these "COD/BF" or casual players. While pushing out the ones that loved the hardcore elements of the game. Pleasing one side will make the other side mad, please the other side and those will be sad. F..ing paradox for developers.

Originally posted by TAWPan_de:

Not sure what you mean. Squad has always been rather non arcady. I mean cmon project reality is far from being realistic compared to squad.

PR realistic? No! Does it punish you for not working together? Yes!
And what is realistic in a game? For me that would be, and bare with me here (take with large grain of salt):

1) Vital and non-vital hits with death screams and agonal breathing.
Meaing: Headshot = dead-dead, shot in limbs = apply tourniquet - seek medical aid station, get hit in main arteries = bleed out within x amount of time(realistic 2-3min), even shock/heatwave injuries. Etc.

2) Deformation, destruction, and a persistent battlefield.
Meaning: Craters (burn spots) that stay during a whole match from arty, tank rounds, rockets, nades, and mines. Houses being leveled and cover is getting slimmer. Burning environments with thick clouds of smoke and depending on wind it can F.. up you whole view. Bullet, tank, and arty casings that stay. Wrecks and bodies decay.

3) Blood & Gore.
Because, immersive realism?! Perfect in combination with the first two.

4) Own Kit Selection & gear management.
Let's say you choose the AT-kit. You then could choose which AT-system you want (within game limitations 2-3 max per team). A primary weapon with such and such optics you prefer (for me Aimpoint4 1x and 3x magnifier) plus a side arm. An option to choose which nades you want or don't want. Mag-repacking. Grabbing ammo from the ones that don't need it anymore. Choosing of plates, Kevlar, ceramic, or steel which can effect mobility.

5) Last one! Dynamic weather, time and sound.
Rain, fog, thunder, snow, hail, you name it. Weather elements have a big effect on warfare so if it rains, rain will stay in ground thus creating a slippery road which in term makes it harder for vics or logistics to support fighting elements. Dynamic or realistic(ish) sound effects. Like reverb and echo depending on area you are in. More beefy weapon sounds and a mixture of explosions which all are affected by weather.

Here some comparisons between sounds in different areas:
Wooded: https://youtu.be/DsU74ubgHMQ?t=48
Urban: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YumjPMBG4o0

Ok i'm done.... that's my take on "realism" in games. But believe me when I say, be glad games are games, the real thing is not as glorified and courageous as many think. War is gritty, dark and will always stick with you. "You can take the soldier out of the war, but you can't take the war out of the soldier".

Sorry for the long read... Cpt. Morgan steered me in this direction.

[Dugan Nash]

I'm getting annoyed by people completely dismissing others who have a different opinion as being "CoD players" or "mil-simmers mad cuz bad"

We're all just talking past each other and pigeonholing the other side into something they probably aren't (at least on aggregate). I played PR for a decade+ and have played this game a ton ever since i got it shortly after release, and I get a little annoyed by returning "veterans" suggesting the game's been complete ♥♥♥♥ for years - especially when they haven't even touched it recently.

I was a big fan of the play-test, and I have similar grievances about the game being very twitch-shootery but it's not like it precluded things like good teamwork and comms from existing - granted you do have to find good communites/servers if you want to find it frequently. This game hasn't exactly filled the PR sized hole in my gamer-brain, but it's continued to be the closest thing to it, despite the many flaws I perceive it to have. I do think a lot of the changes in the overhaul bring it closer to what I'd like, but I've also been here the whole time and am able to understand the other side's concerns.

[An Empath(Me)]

Originally posted by TAWPan_de:

Not sure what you mean. Squad has always been rather non arcady. I mean cmon project reality is far from being realistic compared to squad.

Project reality has squad beat in literally every direction except for graphics, as someone who didn't get into PR until 2022. It's a far more immersive experience than squad, with a more mature playerbase and every round plays out far different besides similar mechanics.

I felt far more "in awe'd" sitting on a rooftop with my squad as we watched 2 tanks firing down a long road with 2 groups of infantry moving up, watching the enemy spread across buildings. In PR combat is an experience, in squad it's a nuisance, something that comes and goes rather unspectacularly and quickly.

[An Empath(Me)]

Originally posted by Lefty:

Originally posted by BatSithCrazy:

I have always been a proponent of having two Squad modes, one "Realism" and the other for "BF4/COD" casuals. Trying to cater to both audiences is a nightmare in one game, so why not split it into two modes and let the player choose their experience.

If they stayed on course with what was intended for Squad there wouldn't be such a debate. It would just be "realism" and hardcore. But OWI was going for big bucks in terms of large playerbase and succeeded with an influx of these "COD/BF" or casual players. While pushing out the ones that loved the hardcore elements of the game. Pleasing one side will make the other side mad, please the other side and those will be sad. F..ing paradox for developers.

Originally posted by TAWPan_de:

Not sure what you mean. Squad has always been rather non arcady. I mean cmon project reality is far from being realistic compared to squad.

PR realistic? No! Does it punish you for not working together? Yes!
And what is realistic in a game? For me that would be, and bare with me here (take with large grain of salt):

1) Vital and non-vital hits with death screams and agonal breathing.
Meaing: Headshot = dead-dead, shot in limbs = apply tourniquet - seek medical aid station, get hit in main arteries = bleed out within x amount of time(realistic 2-3min), even shock/heatwave injuries. Etc.

2) Deformation, destruction, and a persistent battlefield.
Meaning: Craters (burn spots) that stay during a whole match from arty, tank rounds, rockets, nades, and mines. Houses being leveled and cover is getting slimmer. Burning environments with thick clouds of smoke and depending on wind it can F.. up you whole view. Bullet, tank, and arty casings that stay. Wrecks and bodies decay.

3) Blood & Gore.
Because, immersive realism?! Perfect in combination with the first two.

4) Own Kit Selection & gear management.
Let's say you choose the AT-kit. You then could choose which AT-system you want (within game limitations 2-3 max per team). A primary weapon with such and such optics you prefer (for me Aimpoint4 1x and 3x magnifier) plus a side arm. An option to choose which nades you want or don't want. Mag-repacking. Grabbing ammo from the ones that don't need it anymore. Choosing of plates, Kevlar, ceramic, or steel which can effect mobility.

5) Last one! Dynamic weather, time and sound.
Rain, fog, thunder, snow, hail, you name it. Weather elements have a big effect on warfare so if it rains, rain will stay in ground thus creating a slippery road which in term makes it harder for vics or logistics to support fighting elements. Dynamic or realistic(ish) sound effects. Like reverb and echo depending on area you are in. More beefy weapon sounds and a mixture of explosions which all are affected by weather.

Here some comparisons between sounds in different areas:
Wooded: https://youtu.be/DsU74ubgHMQ?t=48
Urban: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YumjPMBG4o0

Ok i'm done.... that's my take on "realism" in games. But believe me when I say, be glad games are games, the real thing is not as glorified and courageous as many think. War is gritty, dark and will always stick with you. "You can take the soldier out of the war, but you can't take the war out of the soldier".

Sorry for the long read... Cpt. Morgan steered me in this direction.

All of the ideas are cool, obviously far outside the realm of what is currently feasible in terms of game creation. Also the fact that as you stated at the end, at a certain point, simulating becomes not fun. As actual modern combat is slow, clunky, random and unforgiving. Spending hours getting to a fighting position, preparing it, setting it up in the literal thousands of ways an NCO is supposed to prepare such a position (overlapping cones of fire, fallback POS etc.) Except for the loadout choosing part (part 4) IRL you would't really get to choose what plates go in your carrier, nor likely the rocket you carried, definitely not your optics or chosen weapon.

[BatSithCrazy]

When it comes to gameplay, both games prioritize teamwork and communication. However, Project Reality takes realism to another level. It meticulously simulates combat scenarios, weapon behavior, vehicle mechanics, and communication systems to provide an authentic combat experience. It challenges players to work together strategically and immerse themselves in a true military simulation.

Squad, on the other hand, strikes a balance between realism and accessibility. It aims to provide a realistic gameplay experience while ensuring it remains enjoyable for a broader audience.

In terms of graphics, Project Reality uses the Refractor 2 engine, an upgraded version of the one utilized in Battlefield 2. Although the graphics may appear dated by today's standards, they still manage to create an immersive environment. In contrast, Squad utilizes the visually stunning Unreal Engine 4, offering more detailed and visually appealing environments. The modern graphical capabilities of Squad enhance the overall experience and make the game visually impressive.

When it comes to environment, Project Reality's maps are meticulously crafted to replicate real-world locations and historical battlefields. They demand extensive planning, coordination, and strategic execution to achieve success. Squad's maps, although not based on real-world locations, provide tactical gameplay opportunities with diverse environments and points of interest.

Sorry to say, Project Reality's longevity and dedicated following have allowed it to establish itself as a renowned military simulation far more so then Squad. Meanwhile, Squad offers a more modern and accessible approach to tactical gameplay, without compromising on "military authenticity".

When it comes to Playstyle, the shift towards accessibility in Squad has influenced playstyle to some extent. The game has become more forgiving, allowing for a more fast-paced and action-oriented experience compared to Project Reality.

Project Reality caters to the hardcore realism enthusiasts, providing an immersive military simulation experience. It thrives on meticulous planning, methodical gameplay, and extended engagements. It's where patience, attention to detail, and precise execution of complex strategies shine.

The beauty of these two games is that they provide players with choices.

Squad, while maintaining tactical depth, has become more accessible, appealing to a wider range of players without sacrificing its core military elements. It offers a more dynamic and adaptable experience. It rewards both strategic foresight and quick thinking in the heat of the moment, allowing for exciting and fluid gameplay, in a pew, pew kind a way.

Ultimately, the choice between the two depends on individual preferences regarding gameplay style, level of realism, and community engagement.

[SnowMans]

hte update sucks it adds clunky a frustrating features to play with destroys you vision majoirty of the time and makes gun fights longer by not allowing people to shoot at each other, cant wait for it to drop and it just be a stalemate all the time

[BatSithCrazy]

Originally posted by SnowMans:

hte update sucks it adds clunky a frustrating features to play with destroys you vision majoirty of the time and makes gun fights longer by not allowing people to shoot at each other, cant wait for it to drop and it just be a stalemate all the time

The shift towards more realistic gunplay mechanics may increase the skill gap between players. Precise aiming, target acquisition, and effectively managing suppression become more critical skills to master. This could result in a steeper learning curve, where new or less experienced players may initially struggle to adapt. However, for dedicated players and veterans of Squad, it provides an opportunity to showcase their proficiency and elevate their gameplay.

With realistic suppression and longer aim times, the role of fire support becomes even more vital. Squads will need to rely on machine gunners, designated marksmen, and other specialized roles to effectively suppress and pin down enemy forces, allowing for flanking maneuvers or assaults. Team coordination and the utilization of combined arms become crucial in order to gain an advantage in gunfights.

It creates a sense of tension and urgency, as players must assess risks and prioritize survival. I guess players will need to be more deliberate in choosing their engagements, considering factors like sightlines, cover availability, and the ability to acquire targets quickly. This can add depth to gameplay by encouraging players to think strategically before engaging in gunfights.

In the end the new update will have significant implications for gunplay in Squad.

[BatSithCrazy]

As the skill gap widens with realistic gunplay, my tip would be to focus on improving your own aiming skills, target acquisition, and managing suppression. Practice regularly to develop muscle memory and improve your reaction time, refine your techniques. Ensure that you're working together effectively.

Rushing into engagements guns blazing without assessing the situation, can be costly in the new update. Try working closely with fire support roles, like machine gunners and designated marksmen, use coms to call out targets, let them suppress enemy positions and create opportunities for your squad.

When it comes to stalemate, campers typically focus on holding specific positions or chokepoints.

Use flanking maneuvers to catch them off guard. Coordinate with your squadmates to divert their attention while you sneak around and attack from an unexpected angle. Flanking not only disrupts their camping position but also creates confusion and forces them to react, potentially giving your team an advantage.

With the new suppression & time to aim, I can see smoke making a comeback. Utilize smoke grenades to obscure their line of sight, making it difficult for them to maintain their advantage.

Dealing with campers requires patience and adaptability. If one approach doesn't work, don't give up. Don't let frustration cloud your judgment; stay focused and determined, communicate effectively, and work together to overcome the challenge. :]