When we start up the “public play test” build we are testing. Running into bugs and issues is literally the point! Sure it’s annoying, and I definitely want to play it for real asap. It’s important to remember OWI is just trying get as much info and bug reports as possible. Testing with live servers and end users is so valuable to developers. It’s very hard to replicate live conditions in a development environment. I wonder how many people complaining about bugs in a test build have actual knowledge about sw dev. Especially on a two week cycle (as we have seen in these playtests)
@@imschleep1309 you could play for a bit, it just would crash in certain cases haha. CTD is a critical issue but still it was found in testing not the live branch.
@@imschleep1309 They probably did work in their tests environments, but they don't have anywhere near the amount of hardware or types of hardware that users have. There are so many factors that go into development
@@stcosyemI thought the major factor in that would be having an underpowered PC causing crashes, when the developers are using god rigs. I would think that problem would be easily solved by testing on a consumer grade rig. As far as different hardware, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure all the hardware they’re running will use x84 for the cpu and directX for the GPU, so I don’t see why the code would need to be changed for different hardware.
While it is a shame, in my opinion this is just going to happen. With all the spaghetti code it's no suprise that the playtests have been and probably will continue to be buggy. I prefer having to struggle through buggy and bad playtests for the final finished update to be refined. We don't just need to change our playstyle in game, but we also need more patience IRL. In the meantime I will continue to play the playtests and share my opinions, no matter the quality.
Yeah, I can pretty much imagine what the devs are going through. The game was probably written in a way that it was not meant to be changed and maybe even somewhat hard-coded. I appreciate the effort though as it is not easy making a game and especially if they have to change a game's core mechanic.
Honestly, I don't feel like it would go much faster if they waited until they were sure that quality was assured, and it would suck if they still didn't catch a bug after trying for a while. If it were a game I was buying fresh then I would want them to ensure quality rigorously, but for a playtest I'd rather they let the bugs be found
Being completely honest, I don't see any problem whatsoever. This isn't happening in a live branch like in Hell Let Loose. Developers have their own testing branch, and they should use it to test if the changes they are trying to make are any good. I'm aware that there is a difference between scopes not appealing to many and bugs that crash the game. But at the end of the day, this is a public test branch, and it is exactly what it says. And if someone gets frustrated and won't be able to test it after they release a hotfix? Well, that's entirely up to you guys - whether you're willing to wait and be a tester, or if you want to jump into a live branch and play the game as it's supposed to be played.
I agree key word TEST, if putting out these buggy builds help devs crackdown on the bugs and helps them build the game i see no problem, sure test the game give feedback on things like sights being too small and MG spread (even though i like both those features) but i like the way the devs are pushing the update forward and should take their time and give us a great game.
It’s hard to test the game when you crash to desktop when you give up when downed. This is an issue that should’ve been identified when the devs do at least ONE ROUND of internal testing. The playtest being cancelled 2 hours after going live speaks to the immediacy in which this issue was identified. We’re happy to be unpaid testers but it’s difficult to do that when the developers don’t put the effort to make the playtest playable.
You shouldn't have to get players involved to figure out if the game is playable and the basic features are working. That's not what the players are needed for, the goal of the playtest should only be to inform design decisions and not to find obvious massive technical issues. It's a waste of time for everyone to release a broken playtest and the developer would agree.
It's one thing to test things that may have bugs. It's another thing to publish back to back to back broken playtests and expect players to test mechanics when the underlying game doesn't even work. Client crashes, optics that don't work and ironsights the aren't zeroed should have been QA'd so the players could focus on testing the ICO suppression mechanics and weapon handling.
@@MoiDawg You have to consider WHY they're doing that. Do they wanna spend 2 months polishing tweaks to the overhaul just to be told "we hate half the scopes and systems", then have to break it all again and spend another 2 months fixing? They're just doing quickfire builds so people can give a bit of feedback, see how it works. Once they stop tweaking things as much and they get through the different gear, we'll see them disappear with it for a few months as they finalise changes and fix bugs.
I agree with Moi here. We shouldn't be testing bugs that should have been caught by some simple playtesting by the devs before release. The playtests should be more testing the balance of the gameplay, not stuck reporting a bunch of micro bugs.
@@Oscarmike247 That is completely incorrect. They are there to report bugs and give feedback to the devs. You don't have to play the playtests if you want to.
It may be their plan to release (test versions) fast and often. you cant assume it's a mistake on the QA since they don't decide what shape they release the test versions in (not saying they find every single bug either). I feel like it's absolutely fine that the test versions are utterly broken and crashing since it's not the stable version any way. I'm just waiting for them to iron out the overhaul for a proper release before I install the game again to try.
I agree. They probably figure that wasting time doing QA on changes that they might not even implement or might break again trying to change is a bit of a waste, so it makes sense to just push as many branches as possible before ironing out the bugs
Exactly this! I think it’s partly just to throw out what they’ve been working on, as well as keeping the community ENGAGED in the process. I think that’s they’re main goal here, not pushing out completely finished products.
Disagree, they've got so many variables that you can't analyse the results properly. They should've kept the factions the same and tweak the new mechanics, then roll it out to other factions so that you can work it through step by step.
I think you are really having wrong expectations here. Those Playtests run on completely different versions of the game, which include many different code structures from current developments. So not only are you testing "new optics and recoil", but actually many other different functions currently developed on. That is why those animations, etc. are fucked up. It wouldn't make sense for dev team to costly put another version together with the current stable public version and just the "optics / recoil" update. This is why I generally don't even bother and never downloaded any "play testing" version. Videos like this make me think that devs should revert to making those play-tests on invite only, so only people are on board who actually realize they are alpha-testing a certain branch of current development.
That’s why we have very long explanation in our testing branch at the start pf the game and on the loading screen. It is for testing. Bugs are expected. It will break. It is good that it breaks, so we can avoid this in the live branch. We even call that branch “break it”.
the devs NEED public playtesting considering this is a large scale game. making it invite only would be a massive headache for everyone involved, and would most likely result in a lack of players to actually test. sure they could just invite a lot of people, but then what's the difference in just making it a public test anyone can join at that point?
If it was live, I would be in agreement. But this is the playtest, we know what we’re getting into. We are here to catch issues that may have been missed. I had a similar experience working on a 3D character rig for a client. I’m sitting there, thinking I got the issues, but the client managed to find a plethora. I work it out, send it back, and he finds more. I work it out, now it’s minor bugs. Fix em, and then it’s just down to tweaks. That animation rig has taken over a month. Back and forth. Game development, is very much the same. With the public playtests, the devs get access to hundreds of volunteers willing to play the game and find issues. It’s pretty cost effective! Does any of this excuse the client crashes of PT-5? Probably not, that’s something OWI should’ve caught. It *was* a long weekend in Canada (some studios gave Friday off), so that may robbed them of an extra day to sweep for anything like that. But for the actual playtests content, I don’t think we can be *that* upset for finding issues in a version of the game SPECIFICALLY MEANT to find issues.
I love the direction this game is going and I can't wait to play the overhaul myself. We as a community have to manage our expectations in these times. As testers we agree to help the developers to speed up the process of implementing new features since they wont have to do all the playtest themselves. However if we get carried away with our expectations we do ourselves a disservice. Implementing these changes will affect a lot of different parts of the game and therefore create a lot of bugs which needs to be addressed. A big responsibility regarding the management of our expectations comes down to the content creators. I regard the playtest as a way to find issues and try the game with a smaller part of the community. Therefore I also regard the playtest as a form of quality control. And I urge content creators to keep the hype at a reasonable level, not to be carried away with our dreams of what the game could be. As a closure I, as a soldier, would like to emphasize that a machine gunner rarely themselves can observe where they are hitting. Usually we, in the Swedish Armed Forces, have a spotter dedicated to guide the gunner towards the target. If OWI would like to slow the game down the changes might demand that even senior Squad players have to rethink how we play the game and go back to the boot camp. The game mechanics that renders solo players irrelevant might come as a chock to us, but we must not let that stop us as a community to support a progress which supports the foundation to why so many of us likes this game; teamwork.
honestly i as a player with 3000hrs in squad am convinced that all the suppresion mechanics will lead to the rise of the solo players. Who will now flank the enemy team which is proned due to the suppression effect and 1 player will move up on the flank and just kill 20+ people in one taps because they wont even understand someone just flanked them. The last time they messed around with suppression you would shoot someone and that guy would immediately prone and just get 1 tapped because of it. Them increasing the suppression again will give more instances where all the noob blueberrys hiding inside the HAB building with 25+ people will be even more afraid of leaving the building. Which will kill the game indefinetly.
@@MartinMunich1337, in your scenario, who is doing the suppression? A lone wolf can't both suppress and flank an enemy 20 vs 1. I guess you're talking about a part of the "solo players" team is suppressing the enemy and they flank. In my point of view that is exactly how war is fought. A widely accepted military theory is fire and maneuver. The theory states that if you have fire superiority the enemies will take cover which limits their movement and ability to fire back. This allows you to have elements in your unit that maneuvers to a flanking position with the objective to eliminate the present enemy. This is why fire superiority is a great factor to success in war and should be in Squad. It can be achieved by both direct and indirect fire (in Squads case mostly mortars provide indirect fire since arty+airstrike is limited). The second part you discuss asks the question if realistic gameplay leads to a fun gaming experience. The case you describe might not be so fun for the loosing team. But if I lead a squad of 9 soldiers, establishing a machinegun position with good overview of the enemy hab, coordinating the machineguns to desync their reloads and maintaining fire for the whole maneuver so the rest of the squad can get in close and proxy the hab.. I would consider that an amazing experience. In your case the group which coordinates fire and maneuver gets rewarded by accomplishing their objective and the lack of movement and counteractions by the enemy is punished. Lastly I would like to remind you that I still think that OWI should cogitate upon how to teach the community these factors that renders success. War is taught because only the violence is intuitive. Coordination and cooperation require a common language, a shared understanding of warfare and a foundation based upon communication. To make public gameplay a fun experience we need help to educate new players these factors.
I think it’s good they’re taking the time to tune this update to the final product. For all I care, I can still play base Squad while these play tests are going on in the sidelines and I’m still happy
funny thing, the way you described not being able to hit something with the mg3 is actually how my real life experience was when shooting it for the first time in the army. It's ridiculous firerate makes it hard to handle and burst fire is required.
The ACOG (TA/SDO) series of optics have very picky eye relief. The Elcan M145 (MG3 and Canada) and the SpecterDR (Brit/Aus) are even worse. Thats the main reason USASOC/AFSOC/NAVSOC moved away from Specters a few years ago in favor of LPVO and red dot combos. The devs actually kind of nailed what its like to shoot something with +/- 1/2" or less eye relief on full auto. They should definitely make it less blurry, as Trijicon and Elcan both have fantastically clear glass, but I definitely enjoy seeing the realism of not being able to just mag dump with a fixed power optic and expect to hit anything beyond 50m. Its very difficult to find a happy medium between realism and user friendly mechanics with pixels on a screen, but I personally love what I see thus far. The sun reflection in the glass during that hill shot... Oof. Me gusta. Edit: theres also plenty of other stuff Id say is more important to add. More stance options for shooting over barriers/walls (like Tarkov/Arma), ability to ping targets to armor and SL/FTL, being able to combine magazine ammo instead of ending up with barely full mags (like Battlebit), semi-destructible enviroment (being able to push down small trees with vehicles and destroy buildings), pilotable CAS like Project Reality, more optic and weapon options per classes instead of just iron sights which havent been relevant for 2 decades... Just to name a few.
More stance options, pinging targets and being able to push down small trees would be great. Combining mag ammo and adding more optic and weapon options would be too far into arcade, in my opinion. You're supposed to be a grunt in squad. I don't think that grunts get a wide variety of optics IRL. Also, combining magazines on the fly is bordering on too unrealistic and removes the consequence of engaging in prolonged firefights. I enjoy the tension that comes from having to deal with partial mags. The pilotable CAS would be great if they could give it a balanced counter. I remember playing with the gunship mod a while ago and those things were way too OP even with the AA.
@@isni1946 so in a nutshell having a high FOV on a magnified optic actually makes it very difficult to pick up targets at range. This is why you see so many Acogs and LPVO's with red dots. You can put the red dot on the target, and then switch to your magnified optic and the reticle will be lined up rather than having to search for the target at 4x or 6x-8x zoom. Squads FOV is alot bigger than what you get out of a real ACOG, but it seems the devs trying to better simulate shooting with both eyes open now by having the background look blurry and only the optic appear zoomed in a separate picture. That to me at least is pretty accurate. It also seems way bigger because well, it's on a big ass computer screen 😆 You also really never see magnified optics on belt feds anyways. It's very difficult to shoot with, and the rail is on the top cover which makes zeroing it rather... Questionable. The M145 was never popular for this reason. Most guys swapped em for EOTechs if you were lucky enough to even have a rail on your Saw or 240. In the case of SOCOM with the MK46 and MK48, they run 1-4x SpecterDR's to have the 1x option. The Marine Corps is also moving away from the SDO on the M27 in favor of the Trijicon VCOG and Leupold MK4, which are both 1-8x adjustable magnification. I think the optic they have on the M38 in Squad is a Leupold or Nightforce lookalike? Not quite sure on that.
@@MrHeavy466 also an option to adjust the friggin mouse sensitivity on 6-8x optics... I hate having to constantly use my DPI control to fix that lol Project Reality did well with the shoulder fired AA options to balance CAS stuff, but at the end of the day it's not exactly easy to shoot down an Apache/Hind/A10 etc 😆 getting bodied by 30mm rounds from 2 miles away or having a JDAM dropped on you without warning is about right for modern combat. Having usable artillery besides mortars would be fantastic too. Marine corps howitzer battery please and thank you... Lol
I think its necessary to supress your own understanding of your role within this system. You are essentialy a lab rat for OWI and therefore it is a good thing that you are encountering more bugs as this means that OWI can fix them quicker.
I can explain how ranging is broken on every other gun. You remember that thing they changed so bullets come out of real barrel of a rifle (so you shoot ground when running), that was a change of point where bullets shoot from, and seems like on many guns it broke the ranging part, so id expect such issues to be present for all factions.
Sights that have long eye relief have long eye relief? The 1p78 that has large eyecup that takes a lot of your field of view has large eyecup that takes a lot of your field of view? Also the water might be wet the next playtest?
5:22, i dont agree, the point of testing is to see if things work, and if it does or doesnt, why. Why would you wait till the update works to test it? This is a scenario in which one dev would put the update in the final game, without testing, and it would be bad. Thats why you have different games in terms of a dedicated testing game and the final game.
You need to break stuff in order to progress. It doesn't worry me as it still is in the early stages of the overhaul. It's all highly experimental, to see which designs and concepts stick and which do not.
I don't understand why OWI feels the need to rush this update that nobody was expecting. If it really is the massive direction realignment they want it to be, ensuring quality playtests should be the top priority over adding new factions. I think most people would be fine with less factions playable in the tests if it means it is easier for OWI to figure out the fine details of weapon handling and supression and also not having massive performance issues.
Truth is, different factions, different guns, different optics, different recoil... I think they kinda wanna go through it all and get it all done gun by gun, scope by scope so that people are happy with it. And the way they're releasing them as TEST builds is simply because they're not focusing on flawless bugless builds, but to test the stuff that are there. I think people need to chill a bit and realise if they want a game of Squad they need to run normal build. If they wanna test the scopes, they run Public Test build. I want the overhaul asap too, I don't find the current Squad that engaging anymore so I'm waiting for it. They are rushing it, and probably should slow it a touch, but I don't think their approach is that bad. Who cares if there's a dozen bugs in a test branch when what they're testing is working. Now when that's not working like suppression in test 2, that's a different story, a hiccup, but the rest of it, I say fire away, brute force mass testing and get quick feedback on things before they spend a few months polishing just to find out people aren't happy with something and they have to do it all over again.
They keep silently adding visual "beautification" updates that nobody is asking for and screwing up performance. They need to either update the engine itself, or leave it alone and start optimizing what's already there. The game is pretty enough for what it is, even at 1080p. I would rather have pilotable CAS, more soldier mechanics, and a destructible environment than pretty water animations and lens flares 😂 I'm sure the majority of the community feels the same way.
I can’t agree with saying it’s “rushing” There IS NO RELEASE DATE What they are doing is thoroughly testing the new build. We’ve been testing for weeks now. It’s far easier to collect bug reports through several tests across multiple populated servers
This is a play TEST. Why would you expect it to work? They're overhauling and rebalancing the core gameplay systems set down and built upon over the last eight years; it won't be easy and certainly won't be quick.
"...it reminds me of the old days where broken mechanics or map layers were added to the game and the community would have to live with them until we reported and the devs would fix it a few weeks later..." I hear you, but like... this isn't the live branch. They're very transparent about what we should be expecting from the playtests, which is broken features, shit that only half works, or things that need massive tweaking before it's ready to be released. I do definitely understand the frustrations with the playtests not really appearing to be linear, incremental improvements on each previous one, but I'm more than okay with the developers testing a wide range of tweaks in a less playable state more frequently than the opposite, which would be less frequent but more refined playtests. I'm just glad to see them putting consistent, concentrated effort into tweaking things continuously and trying them out as often as possible. I respect your opinion on this, MoiDawg - definitely get where you're coming from in regards to your frustrations, but I personally disagree here. This is very much an expected part of the long process of rebuilding the core of the game, in my opinion.
i dont understand what the point of this video is. it is a "public playtest" why are we criticising OWI on "quality assurance" when the point of testing is to find and fix bugs and fine tune things. even if it does seem rushed who is to say that there arent going to be SEVERAL more playtests to come?
The reality is, some things *have* to be tested on large servers with many players. It would be very hard for a small QA team to effectively detect and eliminate bugs that may stem from large numbers of players and lots of activity. Stress tests like this are important for that reason. Take, for example, what you mentioned about the animation bug - is that something that would have been caught by a single individual or even a few individuals testing on a range? Was it actually a problem with the animations, or was it something to do with netcode and server latency under the hood and the weapon animations were just a symptom? I think a lot of times with bugs that make it into a public play test like this, It's almost certainly the former.
The example you gave of where it needs more people testing on big games... was found by a single person on the range noticing that they are broken. That being said other issues like crashing with a full server on a non seeding map makes sense its less likely to get caught but a lot of this should have been seen with a dude testing everything in the range.
Squad has always relied on its community to do the Q&A testing for them, which I believe is a sign of a healthy and engaged player base. As frustrating as it is to encounter these bugs/optimisations, that's the agreement you make when downloading and playing the test servers. I take the gameplay with a grain of salt and engage with the feedback so I can watch the game I love grow into a fun and polished experience. For a nearly 10 year old game like Squad to be backed by community and not by AAA stakeholders, I think its a sign of healthy game and encouraged to see its future.
The weapon sway and eye relief in the gunfights at 0:00 and 5:05 are atrocious and makes me not want to play this "new squad". Almost as if the buttstocks are missing and the rifles aren't being shouldered.
isn't the whole point of a playtest is to find out what need to be fix then fix what's broken so what's wrong if things are broken plus they are actively fixing it with hot fixes
You don’t need a playtest to figure out all of your animations are broken, or your view model when scoping in isn’t close enough to the camera, just some basic QA. It’s similar to if you’re working on a college project, and you ask your professor to review your project before you’ve done the bare minimum to make it presentable. The third time you ask your professor to review your project and he still see’s glaring errors, he might start to get annoyed.
@@mcmatthew7898You are missing the point, they likely know all of this, the point of the test isn’t to fix those things or QA, it’s to TEST features and gather analytics and feedback.
Man these play test are play tests after all there bound to be shity there a play test so just be happy it’s not the actual game, once all these play test are done this update is gunna be sick
I think the optic on gun are done properly this how you see trough the optic to be in 50% of your screen you will have to put in real life your eye 1cm from scope. The long range optic meant give you advantage on shooting the target on range and if you want to spot them you will need scan area way more than just ads like now and cover whole west/east flank
I feel like if they did slow down and take thier time, thered still be a lot of people complaining about the delay. Theres certainly some nice middleground, but I get why theyre trying to keep up the momentum.
The problem with playtests are that a majority of people will just be playing it because it's fresh and new. The hype seemed to be gone after the first playtest which was pretty clear during PT2 when people were just angry (for some reason) that OWI changed some settings, which reinforces the fact that people just play it for the "fresh and new"-feel and that the hype kind of already started to wind down. Testing by changing parameters by the extremes of their value is pretty normal in game development (and development in general), but when you have a bunch of random people that aren't paid to be doing quality control and testing and are simply playing the game you're gonna end up with way too much random feedback and frustration that "the game isn't finished why are you releasing it now!!", even though it's a test. Doing continous development and delivery of their playtests like they've done so far is usually good in practice, but the community seem to have way too much expectation at this point and is always basing everything on "PT1 good, PTx bad and basically vanilla squad", which muddles the feedback. I think OWI should cease all future playtests and do things internally for a few months, maybe even the rest of the year, then consider another playtest sometime in 2024.
Man, you know why these are called play tests? Because they ARE PLAY TESTS. You are not obliged to play this, only people who want to be beta testers for them. You are doing them a disservice with this video. Only thing I agree with is that they should do a little bit more testing themselves before releasing a broken animation that would have been easily spotted. Everything else is a minor bug easily fixed, but that can also easily missed if you don't have a huge testing team. It's phenomenal that they are asking their community to test their game and changing it accordingly.
I dont really mind the bugs so much as I am worried about the gunplay. They way they are setting up the sights and the animations definitely contributes to this, but I think they are walking quite a fine line when it comes to the weapon sway and whatnot. I just hope they wont chase this "realistic firefights" thing so much that they make wrangling your weapon so tedious and annoying that the game isnt fun.
This is a bad take IMO. This is a public testing where OWI can send out unfinished and unrefined builds to get the community’s feedback. I expect there to be weird bugs, unpolished features, and work in progress changes, because that’s what this is! To blame OWI for shipping a faulty prosecutor when they aren’t doing that is bad and sends the wrong message that they shouldn’t aim to improve the game. The more open the devs are with us, through the rough patches of development, the better end product on the LIVE GAME, not the Public TESTING Branch. Instead of talking down about what OWI is doing, give them constructive feedback recognizing that it’s a TEST, meant to be experimental and not finished. Beating down the devs for trying to be open isn’t going to help ANYTHING. let’s focus on giving feedback that recognizes what these playtests are.
I like you man, but unfortunately you don't know about the development cycle. Game is expected to be buggy in BETA and it's not a problem. Polishing the animations and debugging are the last sprints usually. Just see the features and feedback over them. Animation, IK, visual glitches and bugs will be fixed after the features are completed and before release. New content will have their own cycle and will come with debugging. do not mix them up and do not look at this as a release version :) Stay Positive & Good luck.
This plays into issues that I've noticed in vanilla over the 3 years I've been playing this game. The number of bugs seems to keep piling up faster than they can be fixed, and the lack of full optimization for each update is requiring both players and servers to continuously upgrade to keep up with increasing performance demands. There seems to have been a consistent theme of rushing updates for a long time now I've only seen it since V2. I agree a breather is needed but not just for the overhaul, There's some significant issues in the current version that really need to be addressed as well.,
What I would love to see before the overhaul is slideshow helis be fixed, armor flipping when hitting a rock, and getting stuck in mg bunkers. At very minimum those should be be fixed first. Today I put a ied on a buddy and he ran at an russian compound, I dialed the call for the ied and the sound came through but the explosion didn't. We tried it where he was alive, dead, digging the explovses down and leaving them up didn't matter.
To the point of the marines having too small scope, i think the russian have an sight fov that is pretty similar, but the black around what you actually see is much bigger. Seems like marines just have more situational awareness with their scope.
This is why some devs are reluctant to engage communities with development. If it's a mess on release then fair enough but the tone isn't really needed when people are just doing their job.
Unfortunately, if you’re completely reinventing your core gameplay system there’s going to be a lot of issues. The bugs suck but those are just going to happen. OWI may not catch some things or bugs crop up after shipping out the playtests or whatever. The fact is the playtests are there to test the system before it gets sent to the main game. I’d rather them have it be broken in the playtests setting than ship it to the main game and try and fix it from there
Some really valid feedback, gowever I think that the bullet spread on mg3 looks pretty legit. I've shot a few types of guns in my life and automatic fire is actually really hard to control.
They don’t deserve to get shit on. They are releasing TESTs. These are all tests and having this stuff not work now is why they do tests. I think this is a bad take.
the mg3 especially on a bipod / lafette is extraoorrdinarely precise ! if you fix it by either mounting it or pushing yoour shoulder correctly into it it legit does not move even under full auto fire they need to fix that
I'm really excited for this overhaul. The reason I stopped playing was the Gunplay and combat loop. So if this is good I'll come back. I really hope it's good
I honestly don't see any problem with bugs in a playtest as that's the purpose of a playtest. I'm just glad the devs are taking player feedback and that their overall direction seems to be in the right direction.
His complaints about the optics tell me he’s never actually looked through a rifle optic. They made it realistic. The blurred background is to approximate shooting with both eyes open, where your optic eye is focused, and your non-optic eye is just giving you a peripheral. The reason why the ACOG has such a good field of view compared to most of the other optics is because in real life the ACOG has one of the best fields of view available on the market at 4x.
It’s a play test and they aren’t even close to finishing and making it live there’s about 5 mini major updates per major update so they can get it fixed
I strongly dislike the fact they uncoupled the reticule and bullet impacts. Squad was quite unique in that the bullets actually impacted where the recoil bumped your reticule, that's completely gone now.
@2:03 the scope is so obnoxiously taking over the scree. I understand the logic but this is a video game. You only get sound and visual, you need SOME situational awareness to simuilate the other senses you get IRL. Look how much of the screen it covers. Wild.
I'd say to devs "slow down guys, i know your keen to get this up and running but slow down with adding content if its not ready" its better to released stuff somewhat polished for play testing than releasing stuff that is half completed.
They're doing this right. Quality and polish aren't what these playtests are about; it'd be a wasted effort to polish an idea and give us a near-release build to play if that turns out to be the wrong direction. They're tweaking the knobs and making broad changes to understand what works and what feels good for the game before they move into polishing and getting the patch ready for release. It's understandable to see each playtest as a potential release as if the studio is wondering whether they can ship or continue working on it, but that's not the case. They're involving us in their process of learning how to make the game better, which is fantastically commendable. Almost every other game studio is a black box that makes decisions on the game's direction entirely internally - this is them involving us in the conversation with these fast iterative builds, and it's bloody wonderful.
Actually a W take rn. I didn't even want to play the playtest as I was sure I couldn't run it on my 1650 that van barely run squad itself. Also the weekly playtests are WAAAYYY too quick of a schedule and it's clear the devs are doing it piecemeal. I think a better scedule would be a MONTHLY playtest, making sure everything works, or at least there aren't any gamebreaking bugs when it does happen. Feedback should be "This gun's supression needs to be more" or "recoil should be lower on this rifle" and "sprint should be increased by 20% more" NOT "Btw game crashes when you respawn loool"
The russian optic takes up your screen because of the eye cup. The acog variants you're complaining about, might be because of the small FOV from acogs in general? I may be wrong too. Just a thought.
Honestly I am rather happy I have ANY impact on the way Squad might develop in the future. Beta testing is volontary. I think its usual that something will go wrong, and there will be bugs. Of course it could be done better. But I still appreciate the transparency in the way they do it. We could not have this overhaul at all. But we have it. And I paid for this game only once and enjoy it for so long.
I would usually agree with you if we were playing on live servers, but we arent. We are playing on a playtest server meant specifically FOR things like catching bugs, providing feedback and more. Consider how many different PC builds there are out there, optimizing takes work. And on top of that, we dont know what their development process is or QA. As long as this quality issue doesnt exist in the final build, what does it matter?
OWI can’t optimize their game end of story. Quality Control has been missing for years. A massive update like this with non existent Quality Control will be GAME KILLING I’ve been saying this since play test one but no one cares what a filthy comp player like me has to say…
Not even beta builds, these are legitimate playtests with random features/systems in throughout to gather analytics and feedback. Moidawg seems to have the expectation that these are early beta version tests.. which they aren’t.
I hope everyone understands this is a playtest they could have kept it private, now yes there is many bugs and crashing was a unexpected loss but expecting everything to run smoothly and work correctly in a playtest is a joke. Another thing is that not everything is going to meet everyones needs, they might have a decison you wont like. The idea of taking everyones opinions is nothing but ignorant. I aperciate the devs continuing to work of the art of this game and providing us something. be greatful its not post scriptum.
How can you test changes if you can't even play properly the game ?? Either peoples are gonna stop playing because of the bugs or if they don't realize some scopes are bugged they might give wrong feedback while without bugs they would have liked it
I was always right up on my MGO with most of my field of vision being the optic. Honestly one of the best standard optics during my time in the army. You can watch the rounds fall into the target at range. Grouping was so easy with it on the 240.
I'd like if they did two playtest sessions per trial. First weekend of the month, new playtest version. Third weekend of the month, do that same playtest again. First weekend of the next month, drop the next playtest version. A month between playtests should be plenty of time for them to work on the next version, right? The third-weekend playtest part 2 is just because I really enjoy the playtests, but it would also help with accessibility and getting more feedback.
This is why I've never personally playtested in Squad, I can't wait for this update but I don't really want to have to sift though the bugs to get a glimpse, so I'm happy to wait for the final release (And still get greeted with bugs, probably)
Blaming QA for bugs is the wrong approach to take. Quite often its the development department that ignores QA and only in a very few safety/mission critical development practices does QA actually get to stop a release or an update. Blame the process, not the testers.
People who are commenting that this is the point of the playtests have probably not played the playtests. What we are seeing are bugs that you'll run into immediately and therefor should've been fixed before the playtests release. PT5 was cancelled because every time you died, the game crashed when you tried to respawn. How is that part of the playtest? And I am someone that have really enjoyed the new mechanics. I can't wait for when a stable ICO is released. But there is no point defending OWI when it comes to them messing up bugs and bad implementation that can be caught the moment you fire up the game. They need to do better.
To be honest the time spent on infantry overhaul should've been spent on fixing network code issues. Nothing like slideshow helicopters to kill your experience.
Hmmmm. Well, this is one thing where you will just have to wait and see. OWI seems like a small company for what they're trying to do here, especially with keeping up with the original version as well. HLL has hit this snag recently as well. We will just have to wait and see. I don't see them releasing this update until the end of the year, maybe early next year.
To be honest. It's a playtest. It's literally not meant to be working in all cases. There is no quality control if they are releasing something new every month. It's straight deployment. You are the QA.
To everyone thinking that this update was gonna be a month or two out since the first playtest, look at this video its gonna be a solid year till this is implemented in the main game
When we start up the “public play test” build we are testing. Running into bugs and issues is literally the point! Sure it’s annoying, and I definitely want to play it for real asap.
It’s important to remember OWI is just trying get as much info and bug reports as possible. Testing with live servers and end users is so valuable to developers. It’s very hard to replicate live conditions in a development environment.
I wonder how many people complaining about bugs in a test build have actual knowledge about sw dev. Especially on a two week cycle (as we have seen in these playtests)
“PLAY TESTS” they need to be playable in the first place lol
@@imschleep1309 you could play for a bit, it just would crash in certain cases haha. CTD is a critical issue but still it was found in testing not the live branch.
@@imschleep1309 They probably did work in their tests environments, but they don't have anywhere near the amount of hardware or types of hardware that users have. There are so many factors that go into development
@@imschleep1309 they are tests so they can find stuff..how is this complicated
@@stcosyemI thought the major factor in that would be having an underpowered PC causing crashes, when the developers are using god rigs.
I would think that problem would be easily solved by testing on a consumer grade rig.
As far as different hardware, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure all the hardware they’re running will use x84 for the cpu and directX for the GPU, so I don’t see why the code would need to be changed for different hardware.
While it is a shame, in my opinion this is just going to happen. With all the spaghetti code it's no suprise that the playtests have been and probably will continue to be buggy.
I prefer having to struggle through buggy and bad playtests for the final finished update to be refined.
We don't just need to change our playstyle in game, but we also need more patience IRL.
In the meantime I will continue to play the playtests and share my opinions, no matter the quality.
Yeah, I can pretty much imagine what the devs are going through. The game was probably written in a way that it was not meant to be changed and maybe even somewhat hard-coded. I appreciate the effort though as it is not easy making a game and especially if they have to change a game's core mechanic.
Honestly, I don't feel like it would go much faster if they waited until they were sure that quality was assured, and it would suck if they still didn't catch a bug after trying for a while. If it were a game I was buying fresh then I would want them to ensure quality rigorously, but for a playtest I'd rather they let the bugs be found
I think he was too harsh with this video. He sounded more like that other dude Karkamut or whatever
Mfw Squad players complain about a test branch having bugs ._.
Being completely honest, I don't see any problem whatsoever. This isn't happening in a live branch like in Hell Let Loose. Developers have their own testing branch, and they should use it to test if the changes they are trying to make are any good. I'm aware that there is a difference between scopes not appealing to many and bugs that crash the game. But at the end of the day, this is a public test branch, and it is exactly what it says. And if someone gets frustrated and won't be able to test it after they release a hotfix? Well, that's entirely up to you guys - whether you're willing to wait and be a tester, or if you want to jump into a live branch and play the game as it's supposed to be played.
I agree key word TEST, if putting out these buggy builds help devs crackdown on the bugs and helps them build the game i see no problem, sure test the game give feedback on things like sights being too small and MG spread (even though i like both those features) but i like the way the devs are pushing the update forward and should take their time and give us a great game.
It’s hard to test the game when you crash to desktop when you give up when downed.
This is an issue that should’ve been identified when the devs do at least ONE ROUND of internal testing. The playtest being cancelled 2 hours after going live speaks to the immediacy in which this issue was identified.
We’re happy to be unpaid testers but it’s difficult to do that when the developers don’t put the effort to make the playtest playable.
You shouldn't have to get players involved to figure out if the game is playable and the basic features are working. That's not what the players are needed for, the goal of the playtest should only be to inform design decisions and not to find obvious massive technical issues. It's a waste of time for everyone to release a broken playtest and the developer would agree.
@@SouperForSupperfinding things that cause a crash to desktop is exactly what the test branch is for...
@@brodude9208but you actually do
? The playtests are for testing ? Damned if they do, damned if thry dont, A rare L take from Moi
It's one thing to test things that may have bugs.
It's another thing to publish back to back to back broken playtests and expect players to test mechanics when the underlying game doesn't even work. Client crashes, optics that don't work and ironsights the aren't zeroed should have been QA'd so the players could focus on testing the ICO suppression mechanics and weapon handling.
@@MoiDawgI love you moi dawg
@@MoiDawg You have to consider WHY they're doing that. Do they wanna spend 2 months polishing tweaks to the overhaul just to be told "we hate half the scopes and systems", then have to break it all again and spend another 2 months fixing? They're just doing quickfire builds so people can give a bit of feedback, see how it works. Once they stop tweaking things as much and they get through the different gear, we'll see them disappear with it for a few months as they finalise changes and fix bugs.
I agree with Moi here. We shouldn't be testing bugs that should have been caught by some simple playtesting by the devs before release. The playtests should be more testing the balance of the gameplay, not stuck reporting a bunch of micro bugs.
@@Oscarmike247 That is completely incorrect. They are there to report bugs and give feedback to the devs. You don't have to play the playtests if you want to.
It may be their plan to release (test versions) fast and often. you cant assume it's a mistake on the QA since they don't decide what shape they release the test versions in (not saying they find every single bug either). I feel like it's absolutely fine that the test versions are utterly broken and crashing since it's not the stable version any way. I'm just waiting for them to iron out the overhaul for a proper release before I install the game again to try.
I agree. They probably figure that wasting time doing QA on changes that they might not even implement or might break again trying to change is a bit of a waste, so it makes sense to just push as many branches as possible before ironing out the bugs
wery true its still a playTEST you guys have to keep that in minde
Exactly this! I think it’s partly just to throw out what they’ve been working on, as well as keeping the community ENGAGED in the process. I think that’s they’re main goal here, not pushing out completely finished products.
Disagree, they've got so many variables that you can't analyse the results properly. They should've kept the factions the same and tweak the new mechanics, then roll it out to other factions so that you can work it through step by step.
I think you are really having wrong expectations here.
Those Playtests run on completely different versions of the game, which include many different code structures from current developments. So not only are you testing "new optics and recoil", but actually many other different functions currently developed on. That is why those animations, etc. are fucked up. It wouldn't make sense for dev team to costly put another version together with the current stable public version and just the "optics / recoil" update.
This is why I generally don't even bother and never downloaded any "play testing" version.
Videos like this make me think that devs should revert to making those play-tests on invite only, so only people are on board who actually realize they are alpha-testing a certain branch of current development.
That’s why we have very long explanation in our testing branch at the start pf the game and on the loading screen.
It is for testing. Bugs are expected. It will break. It is good that it breaks, so we can avoid this in the live branch.
We even call that branch “break it”.
the devs NEED public playtesting considering this is a large scale game. making it invite only would be a massive headache for everyone involved, and would most likely result in a lack of players to actually test. sure they could just invite a lot of people, but then what's the difference in just making it a public test anyone can join at that point?
If it was live, I would be in agreement. But this is the playtest, we know what we’re getting into. We are here to catch issues that may have been missed.
I had a similar experience working on a 3D character rig for a client. I’m sitting there, thinking I got the issues, but the client managed to find a plethora. I work it out, send it back, and he finds more. I work it out, now it’s minor bugs. Fix em, and then it’s just down to tweaks.
That animation rig has taken over a month. Back and forth. Game development, is very much the same. With the public playtests, the devs get access to hundreds of volunteers willing to play the game and find issues. It’s pretty cost effective!
Does any of this excuse the client crashes of PT-5? Probably not, that’s something OWI should’ve caught. It *was* a long weekend in Canada (some studios gave Friday off), so that may robbed them of an extra day to sweep for anything like that. But for the actual playtests content, I don’t think we can be *that* upset for finding issues in a version of the game SPECIFICALLY MEANT to find issues.
I love the direction this game is going and I can't wait to play the overhaul myself. We as a community have to manage our expectations in these times. As testers we agree to help the developers to speed up the process of implementing new features since they wont have to do all the playtest themselves. However if we get carried away with our expectations we do ourselves a disservice. Implementing these changes will affect a lot of different parts of the game and therefore create a lot of bugs which needs to be addressed.
A big responsibility regarding the management of our expectations comes down to the content creators. I regard the playtest as a way to find issues and try the game with a smaller part of the community. Therefore I also regard the playtest as a form of quality control. And I urge content creators to keep the hype at a reasonable level, not to be carried away with our dreams of what the game could be.
As a closure I, as a soldier, would like to emphasize that a machine gunner rarely themselves can observe where they are hitting. Usually we, in the Swedish Armed Forces, have a spotter dedicated to guide the gunner towards the target. If OWI would like to slow the game down the changes might demand that even senior Squad players have to rethink how we play the game and go back to the boot camp. The game mechanics that renders solo players irrelevant might come as a chock to us, but we must not let that stop us as a community to support a progress which supports the foundation to why so many of us likes this game; teamwork.
Playing with a spotter as an MG is over powered haha.
Great comment, completely agree❤
This...
honestly i as a player with 3000hrs in squad am convinced that all the suppresion mechanics will lead to the rise of the solo players. Who will now flank the enemy team which is proned due to the suppression effect and 1 player will move up on the flank and just kill 20+ people in one taps because they wont even understand someone just flanked them.
The last time they messed around with suppression you would shoot someone and that guy would immediately prone and just get 1 tapped because of it.
Them increasing the suppression again will give more instances where all the noob blueberrys hiding inside the HAB building with 25+ people will be even more afraid of leaving the building. Which will kill the game indefinetly.
@@MartinMunich1337, in your scenario, who is doing the suppression? A lone wolf can't both suppress and flank an enemy 20 vs 1. I guess you're talking about a part of the "solo players" team is suppressing the enemy and they flank. In my point of view that is exactly how war is fought. A widely accepted military theory is fire and maneuver. The theory states that if you have fire superiority the enemies will take cover which limits their movement and ability to fire back. This allows you to have elements in your unit that maneuvers to a flanking position with the objective to eliminate the present enemy. This is why fire superiority is a great factor to success in war and should be in Squad. It can be achieved by both direct and indirect fire (in Squads case mostly mortars provide indirect fire since arty+airstrike is limited).
The second part you discuss asks the question if realistic gameplay leads to a fun gaming experience. The case you describe might not be so fun for the loosing team. But if I lead a squad of 9 soldiers, establishing a machinegun position with good overview of the enemy hab, coordinating the machineguns to desync their reloads and maintaining fire for the whole maneuver so the rest of the squad can get in close and proxy the hab.. I would consider that an amazing experience. In your case the group which coordinates fire and maneuver gets rewarded by accomplishing their objective and the lack of movement and counteractions by the enemy is punished.
Lastly I would like to remind you that I still think that OWI should cogitate upon how to teach the community these factors that renders success. War is taught because only the violence is intuitive. Coordination and cooperation require a common language, a shared understanding of warfare and a foundation based upon communication. To make public gameplay a fun experience we need help to educate new players these factors.
I think it’s good they’re taking the time to tune this update to the final product. For all I care, I can still play base Squad while these play tests are going on in the sidelines and I’m still happy
funny thing, the way you described not being able to hit something with the mg3 is actually how my real life experience was when shooting it for the first time in the army. It's ridiculous firerate makes it hard to handle and burst fire is required.
no no, every gamer can fire a weapon more accurately than a trained soldier....come on now.
it is a video game though, we need balance / fun, squad is not a simulator.
“For the first time” we are playing as people in combat I’d assume they’re familiar with a platform
@@vast9467 yes and still it doesn't make it more easy to shoot a mg3. MGs supposed to lay down suppressive fire.
First time... after training is another affair
The ACOG (TA/SDO) series of optics have very picky eye relief. The Elcan M145 (MG3 and Canada) and the SpecterDR (Brit/Aus) are even worse. Thats the main reason USASOC/AFSOC/NAVSOC moved away from Specters a few years ago in favor of LPVO and red dot combos. The devs actually kind of nailed what its like to shoot something with +/- 1/2" or less eye relief on full auto. They should definitely make it less blurry, as Trijicon and Elcan both have fantastically clear glass, but I definitely enjoy seeing the realism of not being able to just mag dump with a fixed power optic and expect to hit anything beyond 50m.
Its very difficult to find a happy medium between realism and user friendly mechanics with pixels on a screen, but I personally love what I see thus far. The sun reflection in the glass during that hill shot... Oof. Me gusta.
Edit: theres also plenty of other stuff Id say is more important to add. More stance options for shooting over barriers/walls (like Tarkov/Arma), ability to ping targets to armor and SL/FTL, being able to combine magazine ammo instead of ending up with barely full mags (like Battlebit), semi-destructible enviroment (being able to push down small trees with vehicles and destroy buildings), pilotable CAS like Project Reality, more optic and weapon options per classes instead of just iron sights which havent been relevant for 2 decades... Just to name a few.
One of the better takes in this comment section. Ive heard almost every single one of these points by countless other players in the squad community.
What about the horrendous FOV on the SDO and MGO. When you compare it to the acog in game, it isn't correct right ?
More stance options, pinging targets and being able to push down small trees would be great. Combining mag ammo and adding more optic and weapon options would be too far into arcade, in my opinion. You're supposed to be a grunt in squad. I don't think that grunts get a wide variety of optics IRL. Also, combining magazines on the fly is bordering on too unrealistic and removes the consequence of engaging in prolonged firefights. I enjoy the tension that comes from having to deal with partial mags.
The pilotable CAS would be great if they could give it a balanced counter. I remember playing with the gunship mod a while ago and those things were way too OP even with the AA.
@@isni1946 so in a nutshell having a high FOV on a magnified optic actually makes it very difficult to pick up targets at range. This is why you see so many Acogs and LPVO's with red dots. You can put the red dot on the target, and then switch to your magnified optic and the reticle will be lined up rather than having to search for the target at 4x or 6x-8x zoom. Squads FOV is alot bigger than what you get out of a real ACOG, but it seems the devs trying to better simulate shooting with both eyes open now by having the background look blurry and only the optic appear zoomed in a separate picture. That to me at least is pretty accurate. It also seems way bigger because well, it's on a big ass computer screen 😆 You also really never see magnified optics on belt feds anyways. It's very difficult to shoot with, and the rail is on the top cover which makes zeroing it rather... Questionable. The M145 was never popular for this reason. Most guys swapped em for EOTechs if you were lucky enough to even have a rail on your Saw or 240. In the case of SOCOM with the MK46 and MK48, they run 1-4x SpecterDR's to have the 1x option.
The Marine Corps is also moving away from the SDO on the M27 in favor of the Trijicon VCOG and Leupold MK4, which are both 1-8x adjustable magnification. I think the optic they have on the M38 in Squad is a Leupold or Nightforce lookalike? Not quite sure on that.
@@MrHeavy466 also an option to adjust the friggin mouse sensitivity on 6-8x optics... I hate having to constantly use my DPI control to fix that lol
Project Reality did well with the shoulder fired AA options to balance CAS stuff, but at the end of the day it's not exactly easy to shoot down an Apache/Hind/A10 etc 😆 getting bodied by 30mm rounds from 2 miles away or having a JDAM dropped on you without warning is about right for modern combat. Having usable artillery besides mortars would be fantastic too. Marine corps howitzer battery please and thank you... Lol
I think its necessary to supress your own understanding of your role within this system. You are essentialy a lab rat for OWI and therefore it is a good thing that you are encountering more bugs as this means that OWI can fix them quicker.
If we don't complain they will not fix it.
Bug fixing is their job. We are supposed to be deciding what we like about actual changes
This argument only work if there's a small amount of bugs/not so blatantly broken....
It's. A. Test. Don't opt into it if you don't want bugs.
@@simpsondr12 Test what ? How can you test gameplay changes if you can't even play the game or can't hit shit because of terrible zeroing ??
I can explain how ranging is broken on every other gun.
You remember that thing they changed so bullets come out of real barrel of a rifle (so you shoot ground when running), that was a change of point where bullets shoot from, and seems like on many guns it broke the ranging part, so id expect such issues to be present for all factions.
They need to recalibrate every scope and gun combination. Hope they automated that hehehe.
F to the devs that wanted to.
It’s especially pronounced on guns you can’t actually zero. “300m” for some of the mounted mg’s can be either 500m or 50m
Sights that have long eye relief have long eye relief? The 1p78 that has large eyecup that takes a lot of your field of view has large eyecup that takes a lot of your field of view? Also the water might be wet the next playtest?
5:22, i dont agree, the point of testing is to see if things work, and if it does or doesnt, why. Why would you wait till the update works to test it? This is a scenario in which one dev would put the update in the final game, without testing, and it would be bad. Thats why you have different games in terms of a dedicated testing game and the final game.
You need to break stuff in order to progress. It doesn't worry me as it still is in the early stages of the overhaul. It's all highly experimental, to see which designs and concepts stick and which do not.
I don't understand why OWI feels the need to rush this update that nobody was expecting. If it really is the massive direction realignment they want it to be, ensuring quality playtests should be the top priority over adding new factions. I think most people would be fine with less factions playable in the tests if it means it is easier for OWI to figure out the fine details of weapon handling and supression and also not having massive performance issues.
@@paulmcphillips7540 If that's the thing, fast prototyping is kinda good in this case since it's still separate from the main game.
Truth is, different factions, different guns, different optics, different recoil... I think they kinda wanna go through it all and get it all done gun by gun, scope by scope so that people are happy with it. And the way they're releasing them as TEST builds is simply because they're not focusing on flawless bugless builds, but to test the stuff that are there. I think people need to chill a bit and realise if they want a game of Squad they need to run normal build. If they wanna test the scopes, they run Public Test build.
I want the overhaul asap too, I don't find the current Squad that engaging anymore so I'm waiting for it. They are rushing it, and probably should slow it a touch, but I don't think their approach is that bad. Who cares if there's a dozen bugs in a test branch when what they're testing is working.
Now when that's not working like suppression in test 2, that's a different story, a hiccup, but the rest of it, I say fire away, brute force mass testing and get quick feedback on things before they spend a few months polishing just to find out people aren't happy with something and they have to do it all over again.
They keep silently adding visual "beautification" updates that nobody is asking for and screwing up performance. They need to either update the engine itself, or leave it alone and start optimizing what's already there. The game is pretty enough for what it is, even at 1080p.
I would rather have pilotable CAS, more soldier mechanics, and a destructible environment than pretty water animations and lens flares 😂 I'm sure the majority of the community feels the same way.
I can’t agree with saying it’s “rushing”
There IS NO RELEASE DATE
What they are doing is thoroughly testing the new build. We’ve been testing for weeks now. It’s far easier to collect bug reports through several tests across multiple populated servers
This is a play TEST. Why would you expect it to work? They're overhauling and rebalancing the core gameplay systems set down and built upon over the last eight years; it won't be easy and certainly won't be quick.
It's a play TEST. You agreed to test it.
"...it reminds me of the old days where broken mechanics or map layers were added to the game and the community would have to live with them until we reported and the devs would fix it a few weeks later..."
I hear you, but like... this isn't the live branch. They're very transparent about what we should be expecting from the playtests, which is broken features, shit that only half works, or things that need massive tweaking before it's ready to be released. I do definitely understand the frustrations with the playtests not really appearing to be linear, incremental improvements on each previous one, but I'm more than okay with the developers testing a wide range of tweaks in a less playable state more frequently than the opposite, which would be less frequent but more refined playtests. I'm just glad to see them putting consistent, concentrated effort into tweaking things continuously and trying them out as often as possible. I respect your opinion on this, MoiDawg - definitely get where you're coming from in regards to your frustrations, but I personally disagree here. This is very much an expected part of the long process of rebuilding the core of the game, in my opinion.
i dont understand what the point of this video is. it is a "public playtest" why are we criticising OWI on "quality assurance" when the point of testing is to find and fix bugs and fine tune things. even if it does seem rushed who is to say that there arent going to be SEVERAL more playtests to come?
Brother, its a PLAYTEST, PLAY, TEST!
The reality is, some things *have* to be tested on large servers with many players. It would be very hard for a small QA team to effectively detect and eliminate bugs that may stem from large numbers of players and lots of activity. Stress tests like this are important for that reason.
Take, for example, what you mentioned about the animation bug - is that something that would have been caught by a single individual or even a few individuals testing on a range? Was it actually a problem with the animations, or was it something to do with netcode and server latency under the hood and the weapon animations were just a symptom?
I think a lot of times with bugs that make it into a public play test like this, It's almost certainly the former.
The example you gave of where it needs more people testing on big games... was found by a single person on the range noticing that they are broken.
That being said other issues like crashing with a full server on a non seeding map makes sense its less likely to get caught but a lot of this should have been seen with a dude testing everything in the range.
But he showcased his issues in the test range
@@vast9467 and he is just one of thousands who had access to the range, and he's the only one I've seen even mention that in a video as of yet.
I think the first ICO playtest looked the best.
Squad has always relied on its community to do the Q&A testing for them, which I believe is a sign of a healthy and engaged player base. As frustrating as it is to encounter these bugs/optimisations, that's the agreement you make when downloading and playing the test servers. I take the gameplay with a grain of salt and engage with the feedback so I can watch the game I love grow into a fun and polished experience.
For a nearly 10 year old game like Squad to be backed by community and not by AAA stakeholders, I think its a sign of healthy game and encouraged to see its future.
Its kinda normal that playtest has bugs thats the whole point of the it.
The weapon sway and eye relief in the gunfights at 0:00 and 5:05 are atrocious and makes me not want to play this "new squad". Almost as if the buttstocks are missing and the rifles aren't being shouldered.
isn't the whole point of a playtest is to find out what need to be fix then fix what's broken so what's wrong if things are broken plus they are actively fixing it with hot fixes
You don’t need a playtest to figure out all of your animations are broken, or your view model when scoping in isn’t close enough to the camera, just some basic QA.
It’s similar to if you’re working on a college project, and you ask your professor to review your project before you’ve done the bare minimum to make it presentable.
The third time you ask your professor to review your project and he still see’s glaring errors, he might start to get annoyed.
@@mcmatthew7898 obviously they don't want to pay for play testers
@@mcmatthew7898You are missing the point, they likely know all of this, the point of the test isn’t to fix those things or QA, it’s to TEST features and gather analytics and feedback.
mg3 fires 7.62 with an insanely high rate of fire. you should only shoot it in small bursts
@@hnojic GAU-8 Avenger would like a word.
Man these play test are play tests after all there bound to be shity there a play test so just be happy it’s not the actual game, once all these play test are done this update is gunna be sick
I think the optic on gun are done properly this how you see trough the optic to be in 50% of your screen you will have to put in real life your eye 1cm from scope. The long range optic meant give you advantage on shooting the target on range and if you want to spot them you will need scan area way more than just ads like now and cover whole west/east flank
not surprised. going to remain patient. they’ll get it eventually
Meanwhile, I'll just sit on the side with my popcorn and watch all the testers suffer so that I can get a good final release
wherr were u wen squad die?
I wuz home wen phone ring
"optics bad"
"no"
I feel like if they did slow down and take thier time, thered still be a lot of people complaining about the delay. Theres certainly some nice middleground, but I get why theyre trying to keep up the momentum.
Hey MoiDawg! Congrats on becoming cancer free! 🎉 💕
The problem with playtests are that a majority of people will just be playing it because it's fresh and new. The hype seemed to be gone after the first playtest which was pretty clear during PT2 when people were just angry (for some reason) that OWI changed some settings, which reinforces the fact that people just play it for the "fresh and new"-feel and that the hype kind of already started to wind down. Testing by changing parameters by the extremes of their value is pretty normal in game development (and development in general), but when you have a bunch of random people that aren't paid to be doing quality control and testing and are simply playing the game you're gonna end up with way too much random feedback and frustration that "the game isn't finished why are you releasing it now!!", even though it's a test.
Doing continous development and delivery of their playtests like they've done so far is usually good in practice, but the community seem to have way too much expectation at this point and is always basing everything on "PT1 good, PTx bad and basically vanilla squad", which muddles the feedback.
I think OWI should cease all future playtests and do things internally for a few months, maybe even the rest of the year, then consider another playtest sometime in 2024.
You really should take all the critical comments on this video to heart. You are missing the mark ENTIRELY with your attitude here.
Man, you know why these are called play tests? Because they ARE PLAY TESTS. You are not obliged to play this, only people who want to be beta testers for them. You are doing them a disservice with this video.
Only thing I agree with is that they should do a little bit more testing themselves before releasing a broken animation that would have been easily spotted. Everything else is a minor bug easily fixed, but that can also easily missed if you don't have a huge testing team.
It's phenomenal that they are asking their community to test their game and changing it accordingly.
I dont really mind the bugs so much as I am worried about the gunplay. They way they are setting up the sights and the animations definitely contributes to this, but I think they are walking quite a fine line when it comes to the weapon sway and whatnot. I just hope they wont chase this "realistic firefights" thing so much that they make wrangling your weapon so tedious and annoying that the game isnt fun.
With that said I do enjoy Arma and I dont think squad is quite to that point so maybe I have nothing to worry about.
This is a bad take IMO. This is a public testing where OWI can send out unfinished and unrefined builds to get the community’s feedback. I expect there to be weird bugs, unpolished features, and work in progress changes, because that’s what this is!
To blame OWI for shipping a faulty prosecutor when they aren’t doing that is bad and sends the wrong message that they shouldn’t aim to improve the game. The more open the devs are with us, through the rough patches of development, the better end product on the LIVE GAME, not the Public TESTING Branch.
Instead of talking down about what OWI is doing, give them constructive feedback recognizing that it’s a TEST, meant to be experimental and not finished.
Beating down the devs for trying to be open isn’t going to help ANYTHING. let’s focus on giving feedback that recognizes what these playtests are.
the bullets should go where your pointing idc
Testing is doing good :)
We are all testing.
I like you man, but unfortunately you don't know about the development cycle. Game is expected to be buggy in BETA and it's not a problem. Polishing the animations and debugging are the last sprints usually. Just see the features and feedback over them. Animation, IK, visual glitches and bugs will be fixed after the features are completed and before release. New content will have their own cycle and will come with debugging. do not mix them up and do not look at this as a release version :)
Stay Positive & Good luck.
it feels like the devs are suffering to work through massive spaghetti code and everything keeps breaking
This plays into issues that I've noticed in vanilla over the 3 years I've been playing this game. The number of bugs seems to keep piling up faster than they can be fixed, and the lack of full optimization for each update is requiring both players and servers to continuously upgrade to keep up with increasing performance demands. There seems to have been a consistent theme of rushing updates for a long time now I've only seen it since V2. I agree a breather is needed but not just for the overhaul, There's some significant issues in the current version that really need to be addressed as well.,
seemed like the first playtest was the best one. Then the devs messed up the spaghetti codes
I just want them to fix the training range damage bug so I can test the HAT kit and see if I need to change where I've been shooting
"where is the quality control"
You are the quality control sir.
What I would love to see before the overhaul is slideshow helis be fixed, armor flipping when hitting a rock, and getting stuck in mg bunkers. At very minimum those should be be fixed first. Today I put a ied on a buddy and he ran at an russian compound, I dialed the call for the ied and the sound came through but the explosion didn't. We tried it where he was alive, dead, digging the explovses down and leaving them up didn't matter.
The test realm IS the QA. Expect untested stuff on the test-realm. That’s the point.
To the point of the marines having too small scope, i think the russian have an sight fov that is pretty similar, but the black around what you actually see is much bigger. Seems like marines just have more situational awareness with their scope.
Sounds like the tests worked exactly how tests should work… to identify problems and bugs before launching into the live game.
This is why some devs are reluctant to engage communities with development. If it's a mess on release then fair enough but the tone isn't really needed when people are just doing their job.
Unfortunately, if you’re completely reinventing your core gameplay system there’s going to be a lot of issues. The bugs suck but those are just going to happen. OWI may not catch some things or bugs crop up after shipping out the playtests or whatever. The fact is the playtests are there to test the system before it gets sent to the main game. I’d rather them have it be broken in the playtests setting than ship it to the main game and try and fix it from there
MoiDawg: oh no the people can have fun with these mechanics! OWI we need a hot fix rn!
Used to only be 2 things that you don’t want to see how they are made: laws and sausages. Now I’m adding game updates to that list.
I'm hyped for the playtests still, I look forward to them but i've only hit half of them.
Some really valid feedback, gowever I think that the bullet spread on mg3 looks pretty legit. I've shot a few types of guns in my life and automatic fire is actually really hard to control.
They don’t deserve to get shit on. They are releasing TESTs. These are all tests and having this stuff not work now is why they do tests. I think this is a bad take.
the mg3 especially on a bipod / lafette is extraoorrdinarely precise !
if you fix it by either mounting it or pushing yoour shoulder correctly into it it legit does not move even under full auto fire
they need to fix that
you know with the crazy high cyclic rate I wouldn’t have expected that
@@LaikaTheG Video games often depict it having crazy recoil out of balancing reasons
I'm really excited for this overhaul. The reason I stopped playing was the Gunplay and combat loop. So if this is good I'll come back. I really hope it's good
I honestly don't see any problem with bugs in a playtest as that's the purpose of a playtest. I'm just glad the devs are taking player feedback and that their overall direction seems to be in the right direction.
His complaints about the optics tell me he’s never actually looked through a rifle optic. They made it realistic. The blurred background is to approximate shooting with both eyes open, where your optic eye is focused, and your non-optic eye is just giving you a peripheral. The reason why the ACOG has such a good field of view compared to most of the other optics is because in real life the ACOG has one of the best fields of view available on the market at 4x.
It’s a play test and they aren’t even close to finishing and making it live there’s about 5 mini major updates per major update so they can get it fixed
I strongly dislike the fact they uncoupled the reticule and bullet impacts.
Squad was quite unique in that the bullets actually impacted where the recoil bumped your reticule, that's completely gone now.
@2:03 the scope is so obnoxiously taking over the scree. I understand the logic but this is a video game. You only get sound and visual, you need SOME situational awareness to simuilate the other senses you get IRL. Look how much of the screen it covers. Wild.
Did they outsource the overhaul to Team17?
At least they’re being transparent it seems. Many other companies would just not respond and shut down the testing for now or just keep testing
I'd say to devs "slow down guys, i know your keen to get this up and running but slow down with adding content if its not ready" its better to released stuff somewhat polished for play testing than releasing stuff that is half completed.
They're doing this right. Quality and polish aren't what these playtests are about; it'd be a wasted effort to polish an idea and give us a near-release build to play if that turns out to be the wrong direction. They're tweaking the knobs and making broad changes to understand what works and what feels good for the game before they move into polishing and getting the patch ready for release.
It's understandable to see each playtest as a potential release as if the studio is wondering whether they can ship or continue working on it, but that's not the case. They're involving us in their process of learning how to make the game better, which is fantastically commendable. Almost every other game studio is a black box that makes decisions on the game's direction entirely internally - this is them involving us in the conversation with these fast iterative builds, and it's bloody wonderful.
OWI watches Team 17 release the English faction on HLL, and says "Hold my beer". At least this is a playtest, and not a live release.
Actually a W take rn. I didn't even want to play the playtest as I was sure I couldn't run it on my 1650 that van barely run squad itself.
Also the weekly playtests are WAAAYYY too quick of a schedule and it's clear the devs are doing it piecemeal.
I think a better scedule would be a MONTHLY playtest, making sure everything works, or at least there aren't any gamebreaking bugs when it does happen.
Feedback should be "This gun's supression needs to be more" or "recoil should be lower on this rifle" and "sprint should be increased by 20% more" NOT "Btw game crashes when you respawn loool"
The russian optic takes up your screen because of the eye cup. The acog variants you're complaining about, might be because of the small FOV from acogs in general? I may be wrong too. Just a thought.
Honestly I am rather happy I have ANY impact on the way Squad might develop in the future. Beta testing is volontary. I think its usual that something will go wrong, and there will be bugs. Of course it could be done better. But I still appreciate the transparency in the way they do it.
We could not have this overhaul at all. But we have it. And I paid for this game only once and enjoy it for so long.
If it's a play test, then you are the QA.
I would usually agree with you if we were playing on live servers, but we arent. We are playing on a playtest server meant specifically FOR things like catching bugs, providing feedback and more. Consider how many different PC builds there are out there, optimizing takes work. And on top of that, we dont know what their development process is or QA.
As long as this quality issue doesnt exist in the final build, what does it matter?
Honestly, the only thing I’m hoping for is that they reduce the Movement Speed back to where it was in Playtest 1.
OWI can’t optimize their game end of story. Quality Control has been missing for years. A massive update like this with non existent Quality Control will be GAME KILLING I’ve been saying this since play test one but no one cares what a filthy comp player like me has to say…
That's part of play testing beta builds. Crashes happen and you do your job as a volunteer and report it. Fun is a benefit in the testing.
Not even beta builds, these are legitimate playtests with random features/systems in throughout to gather analytics and feedback. Moidawg seems to have the expectation that these are early beta version tests.. which they aren’t.
I hope everyone understands this is a playtest they could have kept it private, now yes there is many bugs and crashing was a unexpected loss but expecting everything to run smoothly and work correctly in a playtest is a joke. Another thing is that not everything is going to meet everyones needs, they might have a decison you wont like. The idea of taking everyones opinions is nothing but ignorant. I aperciate the devs continuing to work of the art of this game and providing us something. be greatful its not post scriptum.
Changing things in just a week, things are bound to break.
How can you test changes if you can't even play properly the game ?? Either peoples are gonna stop playing because of the bugs or if they don't realize some scopes are bugged they might give wrong feedback while without bugs they would have liked it
Did you ever shot a MG with optics? The optics move with the the recoil, you the moving optics are quite accurate.
Admit it. The first testing is the best one.
The combat overhaul will be worth the wait. I won't even play current Squad after trying it.
I was always right up on my MGO with most of my field of vision being the optic. Honestly one of the best standard optics during my time in the army. You can watch the rounds fall into the target at range. Grouping was so easy with it on the 240.
I'd like if they did two playtest sessions per trial. First weekend of the month, new playtest version. Third weekend of the month, do that same playtest again. First weekend of the next month, drop the next playtest version. A month between playtests should be plenty of time for them to work on the next version, right? The third-weekend playtest part 2 is just because I really enjoy the playtests, but it would also help with accessibility and getting more feedback.
This is why I've never personally playtested in Squad, I can't wait for this update but I don't really want to have to sift though the bugs to get a glimpse, so I'm happy to wait for the final release
(And still get greeted with bugs, probably)
Blaming QA for bugs is the wrong approach to take. Quite often its the development department that ignores QA and only in a very few safety/mission critical development practices does QA actually get to stop a release or an update.
Blame the process, not the testers.
People who are commenting that this is the point of the playtests have probably not played the playtests. What we are seeing are bugs that you'll run into immediately and therefor should've been fixed before the playtests release.
PT5 was cancelled because every time you died, the game crashed when you tried to respawn. How is that part of the playtest?
And I am someone that have really enjoyed the new mechanics. I can't wait for when a stable ICO is released. But there is no point defending OWI when it comes to them messing up bugs and bad implementation that can be caught the moment you fire up the game. They need to do better.
To be honest the time spent on infantry overhaul should've been spent on fixing network code issues. Nothing like slideshow helicopters to kill your experience.
Hmmmm. Well, this is one thing where you will just have to wait and see. OWI seems like a small company for what they're trying to do here, especially with keeping up with the original version as well. HLL has hit this snag recently as well. We will just have to wait and see.
I don't see them releasing this update until the end of the year, maybe early next year.
To be honest. It's a playtest. It's literally not meant to be working in all cases. There is no quality control if they are releasing something new every month. It's straight deployment. You are the QA.
I get they have to make squad feel fresh from time to time, but im PRETTY sure the comunity will be happy with just optimization updates.
Sounds like progress is being made, I don't expect more than that
When will the next play test be?
damn its like tests are testing things. I agree they shgould probably extend the time between play tests but this video is just hyper critical
I like the scope changes. It mimics real life
Yeah but apparently the suppression is unrealistic
To everyone thinking that this update was gonna be a month or two out since the first playtest, look at this video its gonna be a solid year till this is implemented in the main game