Just make bigger lobbies, battlefield-style 64x64, would be a total chaotic mess)
Could be tested In one of those April 1’st events in the future maybe.
???
You were the one who fixated on me even daring to mention CAS in an angle that was about the UAV having to go back to the airfield to re-arm.
To me CAS is the boogyman with many of the agrieved, because no matter what you say, they’re going to say no, and want it gone because they are the ones who can’t handle it.
And when you look at the player lists in the scoreboard you can actively see why, as many aren’t even carrying SPAA in thier lineups and they’re expecting others to do the job for them.
Bigger maps won’t make a difference because the match is being fought on the ground and that is based on the mission and mode, and how the players are working on it.
You can make the field as big as you want, but you need other things to do and to make it worth it for people to do it to make them effective.
Such as if you made an air task to move the air fixation on the field, to be the sub-mission.
Much the same as the ‘issue’ the op has and wants to have it merely removed because they think they’re being affected by it.
Notice how they’re avoiding responding to me because their argument is flimsy and they aren’t accepting of anything other than what they want.
This, is just a sign of the players choosing to assume that the match is lost, or just ODLing because they are grinding one vehicle, or one gameplay arc, and failed.
Like those who run a tank and a plane, thinking they’ll just get a kill, and spawn one.
Uhm… No… I just thought that the rules of the forum don’t allow to shift the topic of the discussion.
64x64 is the amount of players, not the map size, but ofc the map would have to be bigger too.
Yes, like different game objectives or something like this. An “assault” mode i.e.
I am the OP and I am responding)
You were the one who fixated on the fact of even talking about CAS, when it was an actual comment about making UAVs work better.
You proclaimed that they had a small map…
This is a topic for another thread.
I’m crossing up threads because you’ve got the same angle as Marco, which there is no need to remove things you don’t like.
1 Like
You were talking about rearming UCAVs, which is a completely different topic.
[quote=“FlyingDoctor, post:56, topic:274309”]
You proclaimed that they had a small map…
Yes, but you’ve replied to a different message, so I got confused a little.
Well, now you’re saying the same thing… Different topic.
Not gonna read his thread right now (maybe tomorrow), but I agree to his opening statements 100%
No, it’s not when taken on board with the engagement that was here prior.
There’s no confusion, you’re just trying to defend your topic.
No, you said what I said was for another topic, so I’ve come back in kind mentioning the suggestion you’re making is in the same ilk.
Cool, because it makes it clear you both share the same issue.
Blind support is an issue with this forum as it encourages echo chambers and arguments, with no genuine engagement.
1 Like
That’s true, but in my opinion this is a fairly rare occasion and it gets abused far more with the former.
What might work better is if the scouting button was changed to a manual ping, like the squad ping, and scouting rewards are based on a circular radius around the ping - that way you are still able to ping enemies you saw go behind cover, and still able to get rewarded for their death - not sure how the cooldown would work though.
The issue with this is that the OP would still have issue with this as it’d be the same situation… You’d just click on spots that you know people would sit, and bam, same problem.
Definitely should be a shorter time for display though, like 10-15, and maybe have a fade out rather than a definitive ‘on the spot’ all the time cut-out.
I dont have issue with scouting in general. Maybe the interaction with SP needs tweaking and duration or accuracy could be adjusted (maybe have accuracy get worse over the 30 seconds?) but otherwise its fine. But I would love to see a damage model overhaul for the recon drones. Being able to tank multiple SAMs is not okay and thats only if you can effectively engage them. Around 8.3/8.7 they are extremely hard to deal with
2 Likes
But those would just be popular spots that are part of the map layout that you’d know anyway, like that one spot in advance to the rhine
But you can blindly click, without having any idea that someone is there making sure that you don’t get the cooldown.
It’s not as if we do that when we’re scouting through the terrain, it’s because someone is there.
I see the point, but you can do this anyway with the current scouting method.
No, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, because it would probably be used in a different manner, not just muscle-memory clicking V on everyone you see, and because there wouldn’t be a 100% confirmation that there is, in fact, somebody here (If I understood him correctly).
As mentioned before by other posters, I think it would be good if:
- Active scouting didn’t automatically update target’s position without LOS.
- Active scouting faded quickly after scout’s death.
I don’t just want to remove something because I don’t ilke it. I just see this as a problem and I am looking for a solution that would satisfy the majority. If the majority likes it the way it is - so be it.
To a point. If you were able to just click in an area, it’s a lot more braindead than having to actually know where someone is genuinely sitting.
1 Like
You mustn’t have understood it then… They could just click on the map where they guess people are, and a radius about them is where anyone in that area would be pinged, literally.
One of your options is to remove it entirely, so you are advocating for that by even entertaining it.
The ‘majority’ on this forum is merely the vocal… Not everyone sits on here, and more commonly you will just find the aggrieved.
No, I’m pretty certain that that’s not what he meant, I think he meant manually marking the position where you think the enemy is, not scouting multiple vehicles in a given radius.
The problem is… That would just be the same as the normal minimap left-click, so what’s the point?
I have edited the original post a couple of hours ago and never said that I do want to remove it completely not even once ever since.
Yes, true. Let’s just not discuss anything anywhere then.
I get it, you’ve watched a couple of youtube videos on cognitive biases and shortcomings of democracy or something and now think that you’re enlightened, but please, stop taking others for mentally disabled.
And that is EXACTLY what I just said… ‘Anyone’ in that area, would be scouted, no matter the number, if one is there, it’ll ping and make the scout.
How else do you think this would work?
Not the same… In fact it’s entirely a different thing.
Doesn’t matter, it’s the encouragement of that removalist thinking.
You’re the one who said my statements were deserving of another topic when I was engaging someone about the re-arming of UAVs.
That’s a bit rich for you to put out… This is just straight attacks now.
I’m not new to this forum, and it’s clear that whenever anyone even mentions ‘majority’ it’s only ever those who agree with them, furthering their own thread.
Just think about all those people who genuinely don’t have issues with the game and are just out playing it, rather than just sitting in a forum bickering with randoms over them even saying something in a thread that doesn’t meet their critique.
1 Like
I think that it wouldn’t work. I think that the guy just wrote whatever came to his mind without really thinking about it, because that is exactly what people do there (or anywhere else). And I’m pretty certain that I understood the message correctly if it was phrased correctly to begin with.
Fairly close to being the same per his words. More like the squad ping, but with rewards.
So I encourage a “removalist thinking” by… NOT saying that something should be removed? And even if I am - what’s the problem? I want something to be removed because I don’t like it, someone else might not want something to be removed because they like it, it’s that simple.
Are you familiar with the concept of sarcasm or what? “Lets not have a conversation, because not everybody can participate in a conversation” is an exaggeration of your point. And noting that something belongs to a different topic and, therefore, shouldn’t be discussed right now is definitely not the same thing.
That is just straight defence put up to idiotic accusations.
So far the “majority” in this case is 53% (out of measly 57 people though) who DID NOT agree with me. That isn’t the universal majority, but even two out of three is still a majority.
You should’ve just said that I mentioned “satisfying the majority” purely to make myself look better and because I’m a coward who can’t stand his ground. That would be true, that would’ve probably made me delete my forum account altogether, but instead you’ve decided to proceed like it’s a damn house of commons and not a videogame forum.
I’ve played this game for a long time and I’ve only posted something here yesterday for the first time. I haven’t even ever used English to communicate before yesterday. That doesn’t mean I’ve had no issues before. It doesn’t mean that all those people don’t have any issues, and if they actually don’t - it doesn’t mean that changing something will become an issue. If I don’t like something and I want it to be changed, what’s the problem with me speaking about it? That is exactly the purpose of a forum.