Project Reality Forums

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:Invisible mines sounds kind of unfair and I can imagine more teamkills than we're already getting.

Perhaps the mine should only be a thin top layer and thus giving the illusion that is buried, yet somewhat visible if close.

yes, it would probibly complicate teamkills. but thats what markers are for.

Psykogundam wrote:Thats is NOT a solution, im not reading the rest of your post. people allready teamstack too much as it is.

Switching teams to enjoy the game isn't teamstacking. I'm not reading the rest of your post.

The reason why people play solo on insurgency is very simple. All the regular squad leaders teamstack on the other side. On the rare cases that leaders actyally come on the insurgency side, there had been some succesfull squads.

Teamstacking is not the way to go.(Okay, I do it myself, I should`t.)

Just my opinion, peace.

I can only say CIA's Kokan server is great. Never had a problem with team stacking. And I ONLY play on the taliban side, so I would notice.

badmojo420 wrote:Switching teams to enjoy the game isn't teamstacking..

Everyone switching teams? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what team-stacking is.

badmojo420 wrote:I can only say CIA's Kokan server is great. Never had a problem with team stacking. And I ONLY play on the taliban side, so I would notice.

Kokan has a nice feature though. You can approach and lay pressure on the US main. There's plenty of cover to aid in your approach, compensating for lack of scopes.

Once you're there, you can set up IEDs on routes US are likely to take, making ambushes much more viable.

Some people frown upon the idea of attacking uncaps, but eh, screw em. That's EXACTLY what insurgency should be about, it gives insurgents something to do and encourages US to get out and build firebases. I'm sure US soldiers can testify to being mad about insurgents mortaring their base.



Rushing in with a gary and blowing up the main on the other hand...

Attacking the main is against the rules on CIAs server.

I never said everybody on the team should switch over. But, if you're on these forums posting about how boring it is to be insurgents, while other people enjoy playing as them, perhaps you shouldn't play as insurgents? And switch teams whenever you start a round and end up on their team.

I don't really enjoy playing as blufor, for a few reasons. But, instead of complaining about it and insisting the game needs changing. I accepted that people like different things, and have resorted to always playing opfor.

Being one faction or another shouldn't be something we subject ourselves to for the sake of the community. If you don't like it, switch teams. Video games are supposed to be fun. You never know, there could be a player on blufor who wants to switch over, but can't because there are more opfor players, switching might make two people happy.

(But please don't switch teams when the teams are 32 vs 32, wait until they will be even or unbalanced by only 1 after you switch, otherwise you'll make the auto-balance switch someone. It's just common courtesy.)

Tarranauha200 wrote:The reason why people play solo on insurgency is very simple. All the regular squad leaders teamstack on the other side. On the rare cases that leaders actyally come on the insurgency side, there had been some succesfull squads.

Teamstacking is not the way to go.(Okay, I do it myself, I should`t.)

Just my opinion, peace.

I never switch teams. if you cant play with the same amount of skill on Opfor as you can on Blufor then whats the point in having player versus player in PR.

I never said everybody on the team should switch over. But, if you're on these forums posting about how boring it is to be insurgents, while other people enjoy playing as them, perhaps you shouldn't play as insurgents? And switch teams whenever you start a round and end up on their team.

I do enjoy playing as insurgents, right up to the point when the battle turns unfair due to built in restrictions on the insurgent team.

Psykogundam wrote: I do enjoy playing as insurgents, right up to the point when the battle turns unfair due to built in restrictions on the insurgent team.

thats the whole point of ins.. to be entirely asymmetrical and to find ways to outsmart blufor

Integ3r wrote:Everyone switching teams? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what team-stacking is.


Kokan has a nice feature though. You can approach and lay pressure on the US main. There's plenty of cover to aid in your approach, compensating for lack of scopes.

Once you're there, you can set up IEDs on routes US are likely to take, making ambushes much more viable.

Some people frown upon the idea of attacking uncaps, but eh, screw em. That's EXACTLY what insurgency should be about, it gives insurgents something to do and encourages US to get out and build firebases. I'm sure US soldiers can testify to being mad about insurgents mortaring their base.



Rushing in with a gary and blowing up the main on the other hand...

Thats right I agree with you I love to play in both team in the end is Project Reality and a Video game for other side is what insurgent doing in real life, specially throwing mortars in US bases ect... Thats why name is Project Reality Peace and Prosper for all