Bonsai wrote: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.
illidur wrote: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.
Bellator wrote: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.
