Insurgents can't win

[=-=kittykiller]

people have been posting insurgency is broken threads for ever and ever not the last 6 months i feel that the devs just dont know what way to turn with the game mode.
do they risk alienating existing players to attempt a dramatic overhall it takes guts an i think most devs see ins mode as a kind of duck hunt,

the old insurgency was good for the past ,we need a new form of insurgency that moves it into line more closely with the rest of PR

capable caches that you then detonate, intel decreasing the area of the known cache, linking 2 caches to each objective, timeing out of caches after 30/40 minutes to name a few.

my own personal preference hidden capable caches that when cap'd are open to be destroyed

[Acemantura]

If it were actually really good, you wouldn't have to enforce it.

Now you hold it right there Sparky! People don't like change.

Period.

I enforce it on my server because of the immense benefits it offers not only to the players themselves in terms of gameplay, but to the health of the server itself. PRMumble heavily increases the chance of player cohesion and turning a casual pubs into a die hard regulars when you can talk directly to an admin if there is a problem and even to just shoot the shit.

And quite frankly, because of the incredibly small amount of computer resources required to run it, the simplicity with which it can be used, and the quality of sound output, I can find no legitimate excuse to not use it.

Right now people get by without using it, so why force people to use something they don't feel they need?

I don't need mumble like I don't need my car. Sure I can get around by walking or by public transport, but I certainly cannot get around faster and more freely than my car. However, unlike my car, PRMumble's benefits can only be reaped when used corporately, not as a lone wolf.

Are you going to be the arbiter for what's good and right for everyone? ...

As the Head Server Admin of ]CIA['s Kokan & Hookers, you bet your *** I am the arbiter of what's good and right for my server, and therefore what is good and right for the thousands of PR players (I have a GUID Log with at least 10,000 separate names) who enjoy themselves on my server daily.

PRMumble is a matter of changing the game itself like a new version of PR: .974. I find it is now an immense part of PR itself and should not be taken as a separate entity.

However, I agree with you that you should be able to choose. So go and create your own server or find one of the many other servers that do not express my views.

[pr|Zer0]

what the above post has anything to do with the topic?

[Acemantura]

ask the person whom I quote

[illidur]

anyways back on topic...

And could you tell me why didn't we face such massive problems in the past? As said many many times before, those major changes to the Insurgency gamemode were made prior to 0.9, yet people started complaining in the past 6 months (more or less, as rant threads always existed but never in this magnitude).

What else could be the reason but the playerbase when no gamechanges were adapted and included recently.

i think people are learning to play insurgency better actually... if better is exposing its flaws as of the last couple patches LOL

i dont really like the thread title. because they can win, just not as often.

i'm sure the devs can see it and will figure something out... i hope !

[Bonsai]

Fact. Pure and simple.

The problem is the player base. Most people when they end up being insurgents act like idiots. They just think that their mandate is to just try and run around desperately trying to chase down BLUFOR and blow stuff up.

The issue of insurgency primarily is that it requires a degree of focus based on the fact that they're persistently in a defensive state. The fact is that if you don't defend your cache you lose it. People don't defend it properly, they leave gaping holes, they stream from them with RPGs and lead the BLUFOR to it.

The problem is that INS is unique. The INS are the only defenders. So if they can't defend they lose. In any AAS game the team that can't defend a flag loses it. How many times do you see a team get rolled cause they aren't defending their flags and are 'tactically' out flanking the enemy about a billion miles from any active flag. Its the exact same situation, the only difference is that AAS affords both sides the chance to screw up their defense.

Most people don't seem to have the attention span to defend a cache. Most people chase their action and blame the game mode for failing to do their job. Are there issues in INS? Damn straight. But go play Korengal or Lashkar. See how hard it is to take a cache hidden in a cave if you actually have 3 or 4 squads of insurgents holed up in that, fighting hit and run in the hills around the entrance and falling back to concentrate on their active cache.

Don't blame the game mode for the failures of the community. Fact is that INS is possibly poorly balanced against BLUFOR if anything when it comes to organized play. Disciplined teams are rewarded greatly in insurgency. If you want the Devs to rebalance a gamemode because of the terrible style of most players then you basically gut the whole mod.

What P just said.

Look at the results of the PRT games i.e. - 2 organized teams fighting each other and approx. 90% of the wins have been for INS.

[illidur]

What P just said.

Look at the results of the PRT games i.e. - 2 organized teams fighting each other and approx. 90% of the wins have been for INS.

if only it could be gauged by a few rounds. also wouldn't they be comprised of mostly aas lovers as insurgency isn't the best mode for tournament play...?

[Brainlaag]

anyways back on topic...


i think people are learning to play insurgency better actually... if better is exposing its flaws as of the last couple patches LOL !

That is absolutely true.

[=-=kittykiller]

straight up players are getting batter at insurgency aka they now know how to exploit the game mode due to the fact its broken and as for prta insurgency would likely win on prta cuz you get people being screamed at to camp a bridge for ever and no where else would you get such organised team nowhere!

[Murphy]

if only it could be gauged by a few rounds. also wouldn't they be comprised of mostly aas lovers as insurgency isn't the best mode for tournament play...?

They had basically removed it sighting the UAV bug as the issue, but really the blufor guys knew they had no chance vs an organized ins team either way.

I do believe both modes worked quite nicely in a tournament setting, no problems with alleged ghoster and everyone is doing their task at hand not simply trolling around for something to shot at.

It doesn't take much for an INS team to win, just players who have the objective in mind.

[Bellator]

don't spawn on the unknown

This is an unbelievably stupid mistake 70 % of the time. Every round there is 3 unknowns lost because no one was guarding them. I have no idea why this has become the conventional wisdom when its highly dependent on the circumstances.

The fact that unknown caches are spawn-able is a vital advantage to the insurgents.

[PFunk]

What P just said.

Look at the results of the PRT games i.e. - 2 organized teams fighting each other and approx. 90% of the wins have been for INS.

See, look at this. CATA and NATO commanders who HATED each other coming across the lines to agree. I don't know what better example of experience you want.

if only it could be gauged by a few rounds. also wouldn't they be comprised of mostly aas lovers as insurgency isn't the best mode for tournament play...?

I commend your attempt to dismiss what has been most definitely the most coordinated and organized and high quality PR ever played on a regular basis in this community.

The number of rounds is irrelevant. Even so if we played say... I dunno maybe 6 or 8 rounds of INS total and of those once did the INS side lose. 90% of the time CATA was the INS team and they were not AAS whores. They were REDFOR whores. They spent 7 campaigns playing as Chinese, MEC, and then INS, Taliban, and Hamas. They developed a flexible intelligent strategy as INS that rarely failed. The one time my team beat them was because we got lucky and on Ramiel we had the greatest Area Attack in history. We blew up 3 caches in 15 seconds. 2 caches were inside the Area Attack and the third spawned before it finished falling. XD

As for the INS battle that my team lost... well we sucked. We failed. We did a poor job and they being the INS experts knew exactly how to attack. I dare say when NATO played as INS we showed as much tournament strength as your average pub team relatively speaking. This was in the campaign where both teams played both sides. And while my team failed to adapt to playing as INS, we never had to play as them again. You know why? Because the winner always picked the next map and CATA chose plenty of INS maps because they knew they afforded them the best chance of winning.

Think about it. In a competitive tournament playing as INS in almost every case was beneficial as you were able to win consistently regardless of cache spawning. Its not to say that they weren't good. That was the defining feature of why they won with INS mostly, but the fact is that they became experts in that game mode and they saw no reason to lose in it.

So really, as far as PRT being a testbed for INS, if anything CATA shows that rather than being AAS fans, they were if anything INS fans at the end of the day. They kicked *** doing everything mind you, but they didn't disparage or perform badly there either. NATO had a rocky road after C7 but even in the times when it was performing admirably it was a struggle to crack the INS mode. In many cases it was the maps themselves that buried you (Bloody Gaza Beach...) but it was also that a strong team that knew what it was doing could easily overwhelm you even if you did everything right.

In many ways a defensive AAS style game is no different than INS. The only difference is that you know where it is to begin with and you can take it back if you lose it. Ultimately tactics and strategy are universal, its only in how you understand the situation and apply them that matters. Organized PR is not something to dismiss. Its something to learn from. INS is very viable and it doesn't take a champion team like CATA to exploit the advantages of the situation.

The problem is people are too hot on BLUFOR. They look at the guerrilla soviet 1970s kit as some kind of set back. I think people are too attached to their scopes and they also have a mindset issue that happens. They feel epic as BLUFOR cause they can identify with it. They have a hard time making the intellectual leap for Insurgents even though in many ways you aren't that worse off if at all. Plenty of PR players know how great the AK is. Many however are shit at figuring out how to put themselves in a position to use it.

This is an unbelievably stupid mistake 70 % of the time. Every round there is 3 unknowns lost because no one was guarding them. I have no idea why this has become the conventional wisdom when its highly dependent on the circumstances.

The fact that unknown caches are spawn-able is a vital advantage to the insurgents.

This is what I'm talking about when it comes to server and player base culture. Its a rule devised out of reaction rather than prevention or progressive amelioration of the situation.

What does this rule say about how we think people behave? A person is on the unknown. He must be an idiot. He MUST be incapable of not being a retard and just firing RPGs from the roof. Therefore we must kick all players instantly who do it. Its a stupid solution but one that is endemic of the mindset that befalls how we've adapted to latter day PR.

We are long since past those hopeful positive early days when you'd join a squad, everyone would be excited to play together and you'd try your best to play as unit. Now its like you roll your eyes when someone tries to get 'serious'. You don't need help being serious. You KNOW what you're doing. I don't need no stupid admin telling me to use mumble. I don't need some stupid commander to coordinate for me. I don't need anything but my squad and we're gonna go flank that flag by ourselves, speed cap this nonsense out, and yea... thats the plan.

But this is the way it works. Communities and organizations, like militaries and corporations and the like, succeed and become better on the backs of those that try to make it better. If nobody bothered to say... teach a newbie about the game, show him how to operate in the squad, then you wouldn't be passing it on, you wouldn't become a better community, and it would just be a lottery of whether or not the good players showed up on a given night. It takes some vision in people to make the game better. You may get updates from the Devs here and there but ultimately when it passes from their hands we're the ones that define how its used.

If we don't try and say 'this is BS, we can do better' then we'll never get anywhere. If people just insist I'm a jerk cause I'm calling out the bad parts of our community then they're not interested in making things better. I don't know what they're doing to help, I just know they're wrong cause... well I am a bit arrogant and think I'm right.

I draw my experience and understanding of this from organized PR. Its like handing a rifle to a kid who's never fired one. If he misses does that mean the rifle is broken? If you hand the same rifle to someone who's an expert on it and he nails a target perfectly what does that mean? That its irrelevant cause we can't expect most people to bother to learn how to properly shoot? Or do we say 'rifle's good, maybe some of the furniture could be made more ergonomic, but thats not our problem'? I choose the latter, and I always will.

[pr|Zer0]

Ya know Funk.... all the arguments had been put on the table peppered with the logic behind them to outline a need for a change in player mindset and not in python code. Guess what: NO AVAIL. They either do not understand nor do they wanna change anything apart from insurgency code...this forum is full of "Caches r too easy" and "ins are too weak" topics.
this thread will be endless, sadly

[illidur]

The number of rounds is irrelevant. Even so if we played say... I dunno maybe 6 or 8 rounds of INS total and of those once did the INS side lose. 90% of the time CATA was the INS team and they were not AAS whores. They were REDFOR whores. They spent 7 campaigns playing as Chinese, MEC, and then INS, Taliban, and Hamas. They developed a flexible intelligent strategy as INS that rarely failed. The one time my team beat them was because we got lucky and on Ramiel we had the greatest Area Attack in history. We blew up 3 caches in 15 seconds. 2 caches were inside the Area Attack and the third spawned before it finished falling. XD

As for the INS battle that my team lost... well we sucked. We failed. We did a poor job and they being the INS experts knew exactly how to attack.

number of rounds is VERY relevant when you are talking about testing gameplay mechanics. i dont doubt that you guys weren't organized / skilled. but thats "what ifs". im not putting down prta or w/e. but sounds like prta is a terrible example of a full scale test of insurgency. 2 seperate teams that never mingle, and you said it yourself that they could have just been a superior team. lots of holes and for insurgency to be a tournament game alone is alot of luck on cache spawns even if every map was equal.

which leads me to ask an OT question... why on earth would the winner get to choose next map/faction? and did you guys play on an altered gamemode? area attack doesn't destroy caches... unless this tournament was from a very long time ago.

[Arc_Shielder]

I commend your attempt to dismiss what has been most definitely the most coordinated and organized and high quality PR ever played on a regular basis in this community.

I'm seriously having a hard time trying to understand how does an organized tournament in which a specific community is expert in dealing with Y weaponry and pre-planning each round has anything to do with public gameplay.

The latter is the issue and not what one is capable of achieving through the best of efforts collectively and with time to do so.

Player culture is just a part of the problem. INS is just not as intuitive as AAS is, which is something that needs improvement. The gamemode is very specific in outlining that INS should defend the caches (be it known or unknown) but not from what range or means. There's no team compromise as the insurgents never bleed tickets. The only slap in the hand you can ever get from someone is if you get arrested as a collaborator or blow up your own cache accidentally.
There is the need for better incentives to work collectively, because as it is, it leaves room for interpretation that my way is the right way as long I keep draining tickets out of BLUFOR regardless of how many times I die. And if anything that needs changed is this before toying with mechanics (although some maps and cache locations need alteration).

[Brainlaag]

number of rounds is VERY relevant when you are talking about testing gameplay mechanics. i dont doubt that you guys weren't organized / skilled. but thats "what ifs". im not putting down prta or w/e. but sounds like prta is a terrible example of a full scale test of insurgency. 2 seperate teams that never mingle, and you said it yourself that they could have just been a superior team. lots of holes and for insurgency to be a tournament game alone is alot of luck on cache spawns even if every map was equal.

which leads me to ask an OT question... why on earth would the winner get to choose next map/faction? and did you guys play on an altered gamemode? area attack doesn't destroy caches... unless this tournament was from a very long time ago.

Old times bro, back in the days when everything was better. After multiple tourneys they figured what could be a good system to change the battlecycles and that worked out fairly good. We played everything from full scale assets maps, to normal infantry layouts (yes CATA chose many infantry based maps and layouts simply because our INF was superior, NATO were mainly the asset whore). But since the introduction of the INS gamemode in the tournament, the Blufor team struggled a lot with the INS maps (be it C6*me thinks it was C6* in which NATO was superior to CATA in any way, or the later campaings. Roughly 85% of the INS rounds we played ended up with Redfor victory. That something around 20+ matches. Too much to go through the whole thing right now.

However the PRT was on a much higher standard than the average public games, players were better and the planning was superb, so I do agree that INS needs an overhaul but the main fault still lies within the players. I'd say 3/4 is due to the ignorant playerbase and 1/4 caused by gamemode issues.

I'm seriously having a hard time trying to understand how does an organized tournament in which a specific community is expert in dealing with Y weaponry and pre-planning each round has anything to do with public gameplay.

PFunk just brought up the example of the PRT to present the facts clearly. Insurgency, played by two equally well-organized teams and players of the same level of skill, greatly favors Redfor, period.

[manligheten]

This is an unbelievably stupid mistake 70 % of the time. Every round there is 3 unknowns lost because no one was guarding them. I have no idea why this has become the conventional wisdom when its highly dependent on the circumstances.

The fact that unknown caches are spawn-able is a vital advantage to the insurgents.

You are 100% right. The "don't spawn at unknown" tactics is stupid. Ins should spawn in and start to build hideouts right away before it's too late.

Than there is the eternal ghosting problem. You'll need players to kill ghosting ninja squads.

[Arc_Shielder]

PFunk just brought up the example of the PRT to present the facts clearly. Insurgency, played by two equally well-organized teams and players of the same level of skill, greatly favors Redfor, period.

...the point still remains. To overcome the open fields of Karbala the team must stick together, just because the potential is there it doesn't necessarily mean that pubbies will maximize it like a very organized team. Actually, they never do or ever will. The solution is to find a balance for public gameplay which is aimed at, even if that means dumbing down for some people. It needs to be intuitive or forced upon on their conscience - which is already the BLUFOR advantage from the very start of the round.

Educating almost an entire community won't work unless the best servers enforce strict rules regarding teamwork and respective staff ACTUALLY play for the insurgents side and promote such philosophy depicted here.

[Brainlaag]

So just because someone sucks at flying, you have to simplify it, because someone can't hit shit and doesn't know how to use a weapon, remove the recoil+deviation, because someone has the strong urge to derp around, have a gamemode dumbed down. Absolutely NOT! I'm fine with changes and an overhaul but I'm sick of dumbing down an already easy game.

Fact is, it works, it has been showed often, it's not some kind of impossibility to overcome. A bit of adaptation and deliberation should do the trick, excoriate the gamemode for the player's inability to master it, is nothing but a lame excuse.

[Arc_Shielder]

So just because someone sucks at flying, you have to simplify it, because someone can't hit shit and doesn't know how to use a weapon, remove the recoil+deviation, because someone has the strong urge to derp around, have a gamemode dumbed down. Absolutely NOT! I'm fine with changes and an overhaul but I'm sick of dumbing down an already easy game.

Fact is, it works, it has been showed often, it's not some kind of impossibility to overcome. A bit of adaptation and deliberation should do the trick, excoriate the gamemode for the player's inability to master it, is nothing but a lame excuse.

When I said "dumbing down" I also added "for some people". I just want any change implemented in-game that will inevitably force the insurgents to play together, hence the many threads about this topic.
However, that might of been ridiculous on my part since I don't see how any mechanic benefiting teamwork could be at any way deemed as "dumbing down". My bad.