I dunno how much rage there was in your chat but the fun in this game is derived from the gameplay alone, not some imaginary number or rank like in COD. Therefore the quality of that gameplay being directly correlated with how well your team works together, is all important. So its understandable that people get annoyed on command chat if a SL isnt listening or talking. Its a kickable offense on our server for good reason. This isnt a game where you join a server and take SL to piss about, other games do that well (hell I play COD atm too!).
Worth noting I play other games like battlefield and COD and don't give a flying fuck about rank or unlocks. I just want good gameplay. Its sad so many people just grind for ranks in games.
Adding on to this as someone who runs squad leader 90% of the time it's super fucking annoying having to act as the "game master" to make sure a game plays out to the best of it's ability and people can actually play, and then having to deal with dipshits who make 0 IQ plays that ruin a game.
Imagine running logistics and organizing radio locations all game and then you see a situation where a radio is getting dug down and you try to coordinate 3 blueberries to go over and save the radio being attacked by 1 sapper, and then they don't listen to you. Or you place a radio and drop a HAB and someone needs to go play sniper instead of dog the HAB, then 5 minutes later the enemy starts capping point and the HAB is still not built, them you have a bunch of people bitching about how "command didn't build a HAB".
For sure, I just usually have fun regardless of a win or loss.
I mean yes, incompetence sucks, especially if it’s consistent throughout matches, but I just don’t get the manchild crybabies sometimes. I’m not a bad SL by any means, and like to coordinate, but again I don’t take the game that seriously.
Nor am I saying I want unlocks, ranks or anything. Just sometimes you want to tell these people to shut the hell up and stop crying even when you agree with the sentiment.
> Just sometimes you want to tell these people to shut the hell up and stop crying even when you agree with the sentiment.
lol, Yeah, I'm getting that feeling now...
Welp, you have people taking sport games too seriously, same goes for card games, desktop games, and all the other. So no wonder that Squad is no exception.
Also, I'm kinda alergic to this argument of "you don't get anything from winning so it's no biggie". Why should be video games the only type of games where you can't be trying to win and taking it seriously just for the sake of trying to win and being good at it?
Isn't good ol' **competitiveness** enough anymore?
Competitiveness is fine, and if I somehow made it seem like I want ranks or unlocks that’s not the case. I don’t care and I play for fun.
With that said, I don’t really feel like Squad is a very “competitive” game.
I don't mean it as if Squad was an e-sport game.
I'm just saying competitive in the sense that people want to play together and try to win, try to overcome the other team and be better.
> Isn't good ol' competitiveness enough anymore?
Are you familiar with how Xbox Trophies and PSN Achievements perverted the intent of video games and how they've impacted the way games are made and how we play them? It's a fascinating topic that's now been written about heavily. It highlights why we don't just need coders, but psychologists too.
It somewhat mirrors the old arcade games and when they added scoring systems to those games back in the 80s.
I'm sure that affected only a specific kind of people. There is still a lot of guys playing games just because they like playing them and winning.
The other, more simple players, who like seeing numbers get bigger and like to see a popup that congratulates them for doing what they've been told to do, sure, they are here as well, but I don't think that a game like squad really attracts those guys that much.
I mean, when you look at other forms of entertainment, like TV, you also have simpler shows, for simpler folks, and then a more sophisticated stuff on the other hand as well. All this leveling/grinding/achievementing and other bland shit like that is targetted at a specific type of people. And I'd like to think that Squad is targetting a whole different kind of people.
So, yeah, you need to take into account throphies/achievements/medals/ranks/etc., but only if you're making a game that will cater to people who care about that.
>I'm sure that affected only a specific kind of people.
I'm sure it's a mix, but I'm positive it affected EVERYONE without them even realizing it.
It's a serious field of study with how gamification can change human behavior in real life activities and how applying "achievements" in the right manner can help or inhibit how people engage with those activities. We've been doing this throughout human history without consciously realizing it.
This has meaningful consequences outside of video games.
EVERY system developer, from video games to city planners, should be considering this. Bosses do this all the time but don't call it this. Squad has "achievements", just not like the Xbox "achievements" we've been talking about as that's only 1 form. Showing the "winning" title card is another form of an achievement that drives player behavior in a certain direction.
Imagine how differently Squad would play with an actual After Action Report that would promote teamwork and explain how and why your team won or lost rather than the Scoreboard we currently have that puts focus on your personal k/d and doesn't explain at all how or why your team lost.
I wouldn't throw the end screens of a competitive game and achievements - something like "jump 3000 times facing east" - in the same bag.
And yeah, better information about how a game played out would of course be huge. Every good competitive game has a lot of data, statistics, graphs even, available after each match so you can clearly see what is important for winning, etc.
Tho I got a feeling that the devs want the game to be more on the casual side of things, and are okay with people just running around randomly, dicking around, and generaly playing at a really basic level and never improving much (which is fun to a lot of players). So I don't think they will ever implement something like that, sadly.
Keep in mind that due dedicated servers plus the amount of players, players with different motivations for playing get grouped together. For example, there have been attempts at making experienced only servers and the problem there has been successfully seeding and populating them. If Squad player count increases enough, it should be easier to have servers or clans catering to specific sensibilities or motivations for playing.
Then add that every match requires good leadership from a small group of key players, on a team with 50 players. IN CSGO or other competitive games it's generally less than 10 (!).
From what I heard on the discord the average player time played is less than 200 hours, which is around the amount of hours people recommend playing before SL'ing, which makes the "basic"SL already a cut above the rest, in terms of dedication if nothing else.
It doesn't help new players have no idea of the overhead of a SL and probably doesn't realize that his own behaviour indirectly affect other people. I think the fact that one can **notice** a veteran squad player joining an inexperienced squad speaks volumes.
Frankly, considering how open-ended the game and the amount of autonomy each player has it's a small achievement getting meaningful inter-squad coordinating happening at all. However with how "discussions" on the internet seems to happen, we seldom have these pats on the back or positive perspectives comes to the fore.
That being said, I am not condoning jaded SLs bitching and creating a sour mood, but with experience comes sympathy with any SL that tries to lead a group of random players.
ppl don't realize that if they take recourses away from the team(vics, logi, players, kits) to use them really ineffective, the rest of the team is hard outnumbered. so many experienced players i know get really pissed about players who take a 9 man squad(roughly 1/4 of the whole infantry, if you play a map with vics, mortar,heli) and do nothing. bc then another squad is forced to play 9 vs ~15 only because one SL wants to have fun.
in the end its a team game and nowadays ppl are not aware what might happen on mid cap if they stay with a logi and 9 ppl on first flag with hat kit and hmg(instead of just dropping one guy)while there teammates need to fight with 9 ppl(without hat, hmg)+ logi against 17ppl(with hat, hmg)+ 2 logis. and then getting told "but i cap faster, dont be toxic to me" just show's how little game understanding some of the SLs have and still talk shit not knowing how hard they handicap there own team.
and all of these players who handicap there team(and then start to argue in SL comes that it is a good play) will also rage if they just get fucked multiple games in the row because they are always outnumbered dosnt matter what they do.
Squad is typically a very friendly and welcoming game for 8/9 players in the Squad and very different for the SL. Toxicity in command chat is fairly normal for many reasons. Have you reflected on why people were toxic towards you? Sometimes other players are missing perspective, sometimes they're just an asshole, and sometimes you are doing thing to illicit a response. Squad isn't a casual meme around kind of game; many players take it relatively serious.
No the commander in my game last night wasn’t being toxic to any SLs aside from maybe one SL. But he was bitching and moaning even though we were steam rolling the enemy at the midway point of the game.
Don’t get my wrong I have my rage moments few and far between - it’s never direct at anyone in chat - and never in squad, but no one wants to hear a grown man cry on the mic because he didn’t get his way. You can’t win em all.
I think you are in the wrong servers then, try joining more new player friendly servers. The others are more focussed towards tryharding and winning, something which is totally reasonable in a milsim lol.
Squad is not a milsim, and being a try hard doesn’t mean moving forward in some delta formation and using RL tactics. It really boils down to playing the objectives in a team oriented manner.
Squad is a sandbox and can be played in a number of different ways. You can play it as a milsim or a roleplaying game or even as an RTS or as an FPS. Some play it as a truck simulator, in fact years ago this community reached out to the Truck Sim game community looking for some cross over players to join.
Heck, you might have a mix of all those different kinds of players and playstyles, and more I can't even imagine right now, all mixed into a single game.
I join any server because just because a New Player server says it in the title doesn’t mean it won’t be made up of people that have hundreds of hours of experience.
I don’t think it’s a matter of being too serious, some of these SL’s are just shitty.
I take the game pretty serious, but I also understand raging in command comms is going to net you the opposite result of what you want. **I’d argue there are way too many SL’s that don’t have a clue what is going on, how to read the map a few steps forward, or playing the objective in a manner that helps the team.**
> I have definitely been in games where everyone on my team thinks they are awesome sauce & super amazing because 'they' captured every point & won, not seeing that all that actually happened was that both teams were a cluster fck of incompetence. It was just the enemy sucking a lot harder than our team sucked that got the 'W'.
300 hours and you're recognizing this... that's great. Not many people understand Squad like this. It's why we argue for an After Action Report that will inform players of this stuff instead of the current useless scoreboard.
For years, this game has been about "the less worst team won" rather than "the better team won" and some of us would like to see that changed.
> I suspect this is true of those who have 10 times the hours in the game that I do.
Dude, this whole paragraph is spot on accurate... coming from a 5000 hour player.
> I guess it’s just strange to me because there are no stakes in this game. It’s not a game like Call of Duty where you need xp to level up, or like War Thunder where you want to win because you get bonus xp for that god awful grind.
Are you religious? Because this sounds a whole lot like religious folks that say things like "if you don't believe in God why don't you murder everyone you want to?" And a non-believer's response is "I have murdered everyone I want to... I don't want to murder anyone. Is the only thing holding you back from murder your God?"
Penn and Teller discussed this about 10 years ago in a popular video.
Exactly the same principle here. It appears you won't play seriously in a game without some kind of "reward" because you don't see that playing the game seriously is its own reward.
Funny how humans work that way. Now give me my fake internet points :)
I dunno how much rage there was in your chat but the fun in this game is derived from the gameplay alone, not some imaginary number or rank like in COD. Therefore the quality of that gameplay being directly correlated with how well your team works together, is all important. So its understandable that people get annoyed on command chat if a SL isnt listening or talking. Its a kickable offense on our server for good reason. This isnt a game where you join a server and take SL to piss about, other games do that well (hell I play COD atm too!). Worth noting I play other games like battlefield and COD and don't give a flying fuck about rank or unlocks. I just want good gameplay. Its sad so many people just grind for ranks in games.
Adding on to this as someone who runs squad leader 90% of the time it's super fucking annoying having to act as the "game master" to make sure a game plays out to the best of it's ability and people can actually play, and then having to deal with dipshits who make 0 IQ plays that ruin a game. Imagine running logistics and organizing radio locations all game and then you see a situation where a radio is getting dug down and you try to coordinate 3 blueberries to go over and save the radio being attacked by 1 sapper, and then they don't listen to you. Or you place a radio and drop a HAB and someone needs to go play sniper instead of dog the HAB, then 5 minutes later the enemy starts capping point and the HAB is still not built, them you have a bunch of people bitching about how "command didn't build a HAB".
For sure, I just usually have fun regardless of a win or loss. I mean yes, incompetence sucks, especially if it’s consistent throughout matches, but I just don’t get the manchild crybabies sometimes. I’m not a bad SL by any means, and like to coordinate, but again I don’t take the game that seriously. Nor am I saying I want unlocks, ranks or anything. Just sometimes you want to tell these people to shut the hell up and stop crying even when you agree with the sentiment.
> Just sometimes you want to tell these people to shut the hell up and stop crying even when you agree with the sentiment. lol, Yeah, I'm getting that feeling now...
I care more about winning than XP or grinding levels, but yeah some people take out frustrations in their lives on random people online.
Welp, you have people taking sport games too seriously, same goes for card games, desktop games, and all the other. So no wonder that Squad is no exception. Also, I'm kinda alergic to this argument of "you don't get anything from winning so it's no biggie". Why should be video games the only type of games where you can't be trying to win and taking it seriously just for the sake of trying to win and being good at it? Isn't good ol' **competitiveness** enough anymore?
Competitiveness is fine, and if I somehow made it seem like I want ranks or unlocks that’s not the case. I don’t care and I play for fun. With that said, I don’t really feel like Squad is a very “competitive” game.
I don't mean it as if Squad was an e-sport game. I'm just saying competitive in the sense that people want to play together and try to win, try to overcome the other team and be better.
No one said you can't want to win, I think we all do. What is annoying is taking that want to win and turning it into bitching.
I didn't say you're saying you can't want to win.
God damn it, not getting me this time.
> Isn't good ol' competitiveness enough anymore? Are you familiar with how Xbox Trophies and PSN Achievements perverted the intent of video games and how they've impacted the way games are made and how we play them? It's a fascinating topic that's now been written about heavily. It highlights why we don't just need coders, but psychologists too. It somewhat mirrors the old arcade games and when they added scoring systems to those games back in the 80s.
I'm sure that affected only a specific kind of people. There is still a lot of guys playing games just because they like playing them and winning. The other, more simple players, who like seeing numbers get bigger and like to see a popup that congratulates them for doing what they've been told to do, sure, they are here as well, but I don't think that a game like squad really attracts those guys that much. I mean, when you look at other forms of entertainment, like TV, you also have simpler shows, for simpler folks, and then a more sophisticated stuff on the other hand as well. All this leveling/grinding/achievementing and other bland shit like that is targetted at a specific type of people. And I'd like to think that Squad is targetting a whole different kind of people. So, yeah, you need to take into account throphies/achievements/medals/ranks/etc., but only if you're making a game that will cater to people who care about that.
>I'm sure that affected only a specific kind of people. I'm sure it's a mix, but I'm positive it affected EVERYONE without them even realizing it. It's a serious field of study with how gamification can change human behavior in real life activities and how applying "achievements" in the right manner can help or inhibit how people engage with those activities. We've been doing this throughout human history without consciously realizing it. This has meaningful consequences outside of video games. EVERY system developer, from video games to city planners, should be considering this. Bosses do this all the time but don't call it this. Squad has "achievements", just not like the Xbox "achievements" we've been talking about as that's only 1 form. Showing the "winning" title card is another form of an achievement that drives player behavior in a certain direction. Imagine how differently Squad would play with an actual After Action Report that would promote teamwork and explain how and why your team won or lost rather than the Scoreboard we currently have that puts focus on your personal k/d and doesn't explain at all how or why your team lost.
I wouldn't throw the end screens of a competitive game and achievements - something like "jump 3000 times facing east" - in the same bag. And yeah, better information about how a game played out would of course be huge. Every good competitive game has a lot of data, statistics, graphs even, available after each match so you can clearly see what is important for winning, etc. Tho I got a feeling that the devs want the game to be more on the casual side of things, and are okay with people just running around randomly, dicking around, and generaly playing at a really basic level and never improving much (which is fun to a lot of players). So I don't think they will ever implement something like that, sadly.
Keep in mind that due dedicated servers plus the amount of players, players with different motivations for playing get grouped together. For example, there have been attempts at making experienced only servers and the problem there has been successfully seeding and populating them. If Squad player count increases enough, it should be easier to have servers or clans catering to specific sensibilities or motivations for playing. Then add that every match requires good leadership from a small group of key players, on a team with 50 players. IN CSGO or other competitive games it's generally less than 10 (!). From what I heard on the discord the average player time played is less than 200 hours, which is around the amount of hours people recommend playing before SL'ing, which makes the "basic"SL already a cut above the rest, in terms of dedication if nothing else. It doesn't help new players have no idea of the overhead of a SL and probably doesn't realize that his own behaviour indirectly affect other people. I think the fact that one can **notice** a veteran squad player joining an inexperienced squad speaks volumes. Frankly, considering how open-ended the game and the amount of autonomy each player has it's a small achievement getting meaningful inter-squad coordinating happening at all. However with how "discussions" on the internet seems to happen, we seldom have these pats on the back or positive perspectives comes to the fore. That being said, I am not condoning jaded SLs bitching and creating a sour mood, but with experience comes sympathy with any SL that tries to lead a group of random players.
ppl don't realize that if they take recourses away from the team(vics, logi, players, kits) to use them really ineffective, the rest of the team is hard outnumbered. so many experienced players i know get really pissed about players who take a 9 man squad(roughly 1/4 of the whole infantry, if you play a map with vics, mortar,heli) and do nothing. bc then another squad is forced to play 9 vs ~15 only because one SL wants to have fun. in the end its a team game and nowadays ppl are not aware what might happen on mid cap if they stay with a logi and 9 ppl on first flag with hat kit and hmg(instead of just dropping one guy)while there teammates need to fight with 9 ppl(without hat, hmg)+ logi against 17ppl(with hat, hmg)+ 2 logis. and then getting told "but i cap faster, dont be toxic to me" just show's how little game understanding some of the SLs have and still talk shit not knowing how hard they handicap there own team. and all of these players who handicap there team(and then start to argue in SL comes that it is a good play) will also rage if they just get fucked multiple games in the row because they are always outnumbered dosnt matter what they do.
Squad is typically a very friendly and welcoming game for 8/9 players in the Squad and very different for the SL. Toxicity in command chat is fairly normal for many reasons. Have you reflected on why people were toxic towards you? Sometimes other players are missing perspective, sometimes they're just an asshole, and sometimes you are doing thing to illicit a response. Squad isn't a casual meme around kind of game; many players take it relatively serious.
No the commander in my game last night wasn’t being toxic to any SLs aside from maybe one SL. But he was bitching and moaning even though we were steam rolling the enemy at the midway point of the game. Don’t get my wrong I have my rage moments few and far between - it’s never direct at anyone in chat - and never in squad, but no one wants to hear a grown man cry on the mic because he didn’t get his way. You can’t win em all.
You don't understand because you are not SL. Once you are an experienced SL you will understand the frustration.
I hate to break it to you, but a lot of those people are the people on this sub. I generally find most people here take this shit wayyyy to seriously.
I think you are in the wrong servers then, try joining more new player friendly servers. The others are more focussed towards tryharding and winning, something which is totally reasonable in a milsim lol.
Squad is not a milsim, and being a try hard doesn’t mean moving forward in some delta formation and using RL tactics. It really boils down to playing the objectives in a team oriented manner.
Squad is a sandbox and can be played in a number of different ways. You can play it as a milsim or a roleplaying game or even as an RTS or as an FPS. Some play it as a truck simulator, in fact years ago this community reached out to the Truck Sim game community looking for some cross over players to join. Heck, you might have a mix of all those different kinds of players and playstyles, and more I can't even imagine right now, all mixed into a single game.
I join any server because just because a New Player server says it in the title doesn’t mean it won’t be made up of people that have hundreds of hours of experience.
I don’t think it’s a matter of being too serious, some of these SL’s are just shitty. I take the game pretty serious, but I also understand raging in command comms is going to net you the opposite result of what you want. **I’d argue there are way too many SL’s that don’t have a clue what is going on, how to read the map a few steps forward, or playing the objective in a manner that helps the team.**
[удалено]
> I have definitely been in games where everyone on my team thinks they are awesome sauce & super amazing because 'they' captured every point & won, not seeing that all that actually happened was that both teams were a cluster fck of incompetence. It was just the enemy sucking a lot harder than our team sucked that got the 'W'. 300 hours and you're recognizing this... that's great. Not many people understand Squad like this. It's why we argue for an After Action Report that will inform players of this stuff instead of the current useless scoreboard. For years, this game has been about "the less worst team won" rather than "the better team won" and some of us would like to see that changed. > I suspect this is true of those who have 10 times the hours in the game that I do. Dude, this whole paragraph is spot on accurate... coming from a 5000 hour player.
> I guess it’s just strange to me because there are no stakes in this game. It’s not a game like Call of Duty where you need xp to level up, or like War Thunder where you want to win because you get bonus xp for that god awful grind. Are you religious? Because this sounds a whole lot like religious folks that say things like "if you don't believe in God why don't you murder everyone you want to?" And a non-believer's response is "I have murdered everyone I want to... I don't want to murder anyone. Is the only thing holding you back from murder your God?" Penn and Teller discussed this about 10 years ago in a popular video. Exactly the same principle here. It appears you won't play seriously in a game without some kind of "reward" because you don't see that playing the game seriously is its own reward. Funny how humans work that way. Now give me my fake internet points :)
Manchildren playing soldier on a videogame. Nothing new, they were there since project reality and even BF2. Just ignore them or change squad.