basrah the way its meant to be played?

[Sgt_carbonero]

Last night i was playing insurgency on basrah. during the game it came to our attention that a fellow insurgent was in the NVCP with the brits, cooperating with them (wgclan , two brothers, one on each side).

now on the surface i guess this is kind of a chuckle, haha, locals cooperating, but it became frustrating when it appeared the insurgent was giving info about locations of caches and our troop positions.

Many would say that was a fiar tactic, but i disagree. IMO the idea is the brits have to fight their way to finding the caches, therein lies the challenge. If the insurgent can look on his minimap and tell the brits, hey, 3 guys are coming southeast of the cap, thats not fair, as we have no counter for that.

Dev-Karaton was there, and thought it was ok. Is this the way you guys imagined it when you came up with insurgents or do you all think thats a form of cheating?

[Dunehunter]

As long as the talking is done through general chat, and not some kind of private teamspeak or something, I'm fine with it Just hunt down the traitor and kill him!

[eddie]

Yep. As in Insurgent I sometimes watch the VCP and see if the civvies lead the soldiers anywhere. If they do, bang.

[Outlawz7]

Well, it was allowed in .604, when Brits had no idea, where could caches be. Then they added the intel stuff, so GB would get an idea, where the caches are, so I dont see, why the damn civilians are needed to be traitors.
Ill agree with Eddie - bang

[l|Bubba|l]

They got allready intel for catching civies.
Someone who gives the position of all ammo dumps away is not better than a spy in Planetside.
It's allready hard enough for the insurgents.

[Sgt_carbonero]

the problem here was that it appeared the brothers were speaking to each other, thereby the insurgent didnt need to leave the safety of the NVP compound to tell them where the caches were.

[Hardtman]

But never forget: You can use this to your advantage.

Just get some Civvi to lead many brits to some point,pretending there would be heavy resitance or something, and then set up the ambush of their life at the route

[Outlawz7]

If you can get the civi to cooperate. Or watch where he leads them, then throw a grappling hook down and let your insurgents fastrope behind their asses , or run them over with a technical.

[bosco_]

Hey, that kind of stuff happens in RL too... Sunni and Shiite you know..

[bigmoose332]

i think we all need to remember, that this mode was originally made as a 'real life' kind of siuation. Thus the 'this is an FPS not an MMORPG' arguments at the beginning.

Just prepare yourselfs as an insurgent for 'traitors'. I look forward to that - sounds fun,

Bigmoose

[youm0nt]

Speaking of insurgents and kiling the "traitor" civilians, is there any penalty spawn time for killing your own civilians?

[Guardian[]B()b]

It's cheating if it's done in a way outside of the design of the game. Like private TS. If he's using global chat then any of us could do that anytime - we would not last long on our team of course

[puglous]

Yeah, I'd call it cheating. Its like saying its legit when someone starts teamkilling and then calls himself a mole.

I mean, if you want to do it in private games, that's fine (heck, that would be fun). However, I'd be really annoyed if this was happening on a public ranked server.

Still, I haven't yet played much of .6

[Sgt_carbonero]

really the issue in this case was they were brothers and as such were possibly able to communicate cache/enemy locations without having to leave the nvcp base to lead anyone anywhere.

[{GD}Ghost]

In most cases, I would consider this ok since this does happen in real life, however unless there is a game mechanic that supports this situation, i would have to say that this is questionable. However, one person doing this will not automatically lose the Insurgent team the game because if the resst of the team is doing a good job of defending, one person giving away the positions is going to merely be an inconvenience at most.

[Sgt_carbonero]

In most cases, I would consider this ok since this does happen in real life, however unless there is a game mechanic that supports this situation, i would have to say that this is questionable. However, one person doing this will not automatically lose the Insurgent team the game because if the resst of the team is doing a good job of defending, one person giving away the positions is going to merely be an inconvenience at most.

I disagree because the offender can also tell the other team where the insurgents are NOT defending caches, which is a huge advantage.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Shoot them.

[WNxKenwayy]

It will happen no matter what. I was playing as a sniper last not on Mestia, and had 2 insurgents squads hunting me (they said as much in general chat). Was fun for a while then suddenly they knew were I was, every single time, without firing a shot. It was the TG guys on my team telling them where I was. So long as there is teamspeak, there will be traitors.

[fuzzhead]

I was there last night, as one of the brits cooperating with the defecting civie.. it was prety fun but he didnt actually give us any weapons intel lol, we actually had a hard time protecting him as all the insurgents were trying to hunt him down lol

they were overruning NVCP and we had put him in a bunker to hide him. Of course NVCP got overrun and they had assasinated our informant lol

it was alot of fun and yea I would agree that if they were using TS that is a cheap tactic, but afaik last night nobody was doing that.

it would be sweet in the future if the game design allowed for this sort of thing to happen. in arma /ofp there is a 3rd faction and in a few scenarios it was LOADS of fun playing both sides for your own benefit

[SGT.JOKER]

i was there the other night, i dont really see anything wrong with it since the insurgents use civi's to car bomb, spot brits and lure them into traps so technically its a n eye for a n eye situation lol