Project Reality Forums

Stealthgato wrote:Insurgents need an SPG technical in Karbala at the very least.

+ 1'000'000

Because now (and even before this version) Karabala is an unenjoyable rapefest if you're an insurgent and if BLUFOR are working together (and they should, because this is PR; if not than PR turns to pseudo VBF2 with PR's cool gadgets and assets.) Of course I've won as INS countless times, but that's not what I call winning, rather raping because BLUFOR didn't have good (not even avarage) SL's. Rape happens when teams are unbalanced (one side has all the pros/mumblers/good SL's, the other - VBF2 and =H= minded people; keke, who will win?)

So please let's not forget this idea and wait for the suggestion section to re-open.

OMG I know its awesome to set the US team back 200 tickets by pouring all your defenses into one cache, but when that isnt working, how about splitting up your defences between the known and unkown?

Mouthpiece wrote:+ 1'000'000

Because now (and even before this version) Karabala is an unenjoyable rapefest if you're an insurgent and if BLUFOR are working together (and they should, because this is PR; if not than PR turns to pseudo VBF2 with PR's cool gadgets and assets.) Of course I've won as INS countless times, but that's not what I call winning, rather raping because BLUFOR didn't have good (not even avarage) SL's. Rape happens when teams are unbalanced (one side has all the pros/mumblers/good SL's, the other - VBF2 and =H= minded people; keke, who will win?)

So please let's not forget this idea and wait for the suggestion section to re-open.

Since you cannot be forced to play PR, you can't really call any of that rape... MAYBE date rape, since you were coerced into playing by the assumption that you were going to have a cohesive team on a balanced map...

Cassius wrote:OMG I know its awesome to set the US team back 200 tickets by pouring all your defenses into one cache, but when that isnt working, how about splitting up your defences between the known and unkown?

Because these days, you get kick/banned for being within half a klick of an unknown?

80HD wrote:Because these days, you get kick/banned for being within half a klick of an unknown?

Then you're playing on the wrong servers, where all the wrong people acted like they had a clue when they were making the rules.

Oh my, How I for saw this day. I Said it then back in the day. This type of game mode is in need of some tweaks. Even more so now. Players have at last learned all the places of all the cache. And no matter what the Op4 team do, They can not hold back an haft average team of Blue4 due to the inherent advantage of the kits and assets. And god forbid you try to help as a Civy. All you are good for is giving lintel away when you die (I know how to die as a maryta but many don't). What is the best thing I every saw was a line of Civys trying to be a meat shield as we try to rev a team mate. Only for a tank to blow all 7 up and he still did not get any penalties. Funny but sad that the penalties that should have killed him (that penalization may have changed now) did not.

The problem with the 'stay away from unknowns' rule is that on a basic level its philosophy is flawed. The reason you keep people away from unknowns is because nubs will show themselves and take pot shots at passing BLU and give the spot away. Ultimately this is a fear of the players being bad not of the strategy which the rule is enforcing being particularly good.

You always need at least a few people on an unknown to hold the fort in case of a random discovery. Thats just common sense. Saying nobody should be around them because you fear someone is gonna give it away means that if they do find it then they are unopposed.

That said theres no simple solution. Good leaders is really the only one, along with a unified team strategy. Park the majority of your forces at the known cache and then leave a guarding element at the unknown to stay out of sight and just wait.

Is that boring? Sure it is. But winning usually means doing boring things a lot of the time. Any clan or team will have duties handed out and not think twice about them that are boring but need to get done. So a good SL with the ability to keep his guys hidden and calm is the best solution, but then again a lot of people have little faith in that idea these days it seems.

PFunk wrote:
You always need at least a few people on an unknown to hold the fort in case of a random discovery. Thats just common sense. Saying nobody should be around them because you fear someone is gonna give it away means that if they do find it then they are unopposed.

That said theres no simple solution. Good leaders is really the only one, along with a unified team strategy. Park the majority of your forces at the known cache and then leave a guarding element at the unknown to stay out of sight and just wait.

Is that boring? Sure it is. But winning usually means doing boring things a lot of the time. Any clan or team will have duties handed out and not think twice about them that are boring but need to get done. So a good SL with the ability to keep his guys hidden and calm is the best solution, but then again a lot of people have little faith in that idea these days it seems.

What he says is true. But Alas on public games. Everybody wants that head shot and don't care about the rest of the team.

I applaud the Devs for making cache only destructible with only 4 incendiary, thereby making it harder for one person to destroy a cache "ninja style raid" by themselves while ghosting. I remember not so long ago, one infantry can easily destroy a cache with 30 rounds of gun fire or 2 grenades or one incendiary or other explosive devices. But now, it take more incendiaries and only incendiaries to kill the cache, and in addition incendiaries can't be throw like grenade anymore with the new update. Now, in order to destroy it, you would need to be very very close to the cache and drop the incendiary precisely on spot or else you end up wasting incendiaries. Since infantry carry 2 incendiary at a time, this requires more than one infantry to destroy a cache.

However, this can be overcome if a person is playing as a riflemen, in that case he can carry two incendiary and gain two more from his ammo kit, thus it is possible for one person to destroy the cache by themselves. But the problem still doesn't solve ghosting. I believe the best way to make ghosting ever harder is to set a time limit on when one can choose to switch to another team, like lets say 30-45 minutes time limit for each time. I don't know if that's possible for Devs to do, but I think that should be implemented to curves ghosting. I believe auto team balance should stay because it's random. Sometime, people forget where the actually location of the cache is, so if they were to switch team via auto team balance, the effect of ghosting would only be a minimum.

However, I believe there are individuals who intentionally ghost by writing down the location of each cache and switch over to the other team. These serial ghosters would go to the unknown and destroy the cache by themselves. I think that's the major problem I have with insurgency maps is the intentional use of this flaw in this map mode. It is these individuals who choose to disrupt game play by cheating, which really gets on my nerve. Team switching time limited would make it harder for "one" individual to cheat the system. When a round begins, people should have the option to be in the team they want and then lock the teams. Then the cache should be reveal once the team is set.

Other suggestions would be that when a cache is destroyed, there should be in big bold letter who destroyed the cache. Like for instance "PLAYER X HAS DESTROYED THE CACHE, THERE ARE NOW X AMOUNT OF CACHE LEFT". IF they can do this with an insurgent destroying their own cache, why not have the name of the BLUFOR up as well? This would make it easier for admins to track who has been destroying cache, especially unknown cache, and see if there's a pattern.

dsi1 wrote:I find it really hard to enjoy Insurgency as OPFOR, either you sit defending cache that can be defended waiting for BLUFOR to come (incredibly boring, sitting around for literally hours...) or you chase around caches trying to get to them before BLUFOR.

The worst is watching caches spawn and be found within minutes of spawning, even when no teammates spawn on the unknown. It's just helpless, the 'stay away from unknown' rules seem to hinder more than help, when BLUFOR are gonna find that cache anyways shouldn't you have some defense there?

You never feel like you're winning either, BLUFOR just take down cache after cache and, if you're lucky, they might run out of tickets before they get the last cache.

Was fun in the days when op4 could properly fight back when you could kill an apc with a molotov when you could actually blow shit up with a IED when all cars gave ammo for your rpg when you had spawn cars when all caches was on the map at once when op4 had random spawns map wide when every blu main didn't have a huge dome of death around them when baserape for insurgents was encouraged and most of all when bomb cars and bigred played the starwars catana song...........that my friend was 5.0 one moments silence please.

I cried a little wile typing that

Actually 0.5 was just weird. 0.6 and onwards had a better insurgency mode. Though I agree that some changes in the recent patches weren't perfect, and it's now way too easy to find caches without caring about intel at all.

ytman wrote:
There was no ghosting just an appearantly new BlueForce tactic of searching high probability locations for caches (maybe with some recon help).

Jolly this tactic isn't new and has been done since I've played PR (for nearly 2 years?). I actively do it and actively protect against it. Its just the way the game mode works now.

I feel its a huge failing of PR's Insurgency mode but.... not time for that.

thats how it works in real life, we patrol and search areas repeatedly. that's how it was intended to be played when the current style of ins was released

The only failure in the mod is the lack of variance in hiding locations, which i blame on the engine really.

i think a possible solution would be to include multiple spawn positions around a new cache location which are tied to the cache itself. this way people don't have to spawn ON the cache. Just like the cache spawn itself they cease working when the cache is either over run or destroyed. so sort of like the multiple different spots to spawn on at the main.

For me its a lack of teamwork on the op4 side that cripples this mode of play. No-one seems to care about there life much. On the allied side teamwork seems to flow a lot better and indeed when there are no caches known many SL's do so choose to search for unknowns.

No spawning on unknowns? Thats a bad rule indeed.

IMO, insurgents should be building Hideouts at any possible location for spawning unknown caches.
That way people spawn in from all over the place and BluFor is going to have a lot of trouble finding caches.

Therefore, people should be able to spawn on the Hideout about 100-200m to the N/NE/E/SE/S/SW/W/NW of unknown cache instead of spawning right on top of it.

It's not like it cost anything to dig up a hideout...just get a squad to a sensible location and build some stuff...

Here the other day on Operation Archer, me and my squad we're going to a known location in a jeep, when we suddenly came across a little compound in the middle of nowhere. My instincts told me, that it might just be a good idea to search this compound just for the sake of it - so we did. I stepped inside one of the huts and immediately stumbled upon a weapon cache! I wasn't expecting this, so I got surprised and called in the rest of my squad to take it out.

Before we could get back in the jeep, we heard a Gary coming our way for retaliation. So I got intimidated and told my men to stay hidden inside one of the huts and not to make a single sound. A couple of minutes of sheer fright later, the guy jumped out of his Gary to look for us inside the compound - stupid as he is (or rather was). So we easily neutralized him, mounted up in the jeep again and took off for the known cache.

Hehe, you guys are probably familiar with the urge of telling your friends your Project Reality adventures

It's random, and sometimes it spawns in bad locations (more often then not on some ins maps like say Kokan/Ramiel). If there was some sort of mechanic that spawned the caches away from BluFor activity it could save some dumb cache losses.

I remember on Kokan we had started a patrol down the south west side of the map, we ran into contact about 200 meters from main base so we found cover in the complex just south. I was reloading when a cache literally spawned right at my feet. Was the dumbest thing I've seen in PR, and needless to say the other team had absolutely no chance to defend or even reach the cache because there was a whole inf squad defending the area before it even spawned in.

We go on unknown cache hunts quite often. Sometimes you end up walking around enjoying Fallujah's finest back alleys, others times you run into a few stragglers who eventually lead you do a point of interest (which isn't always a cache). It's a valid tactic and somewhat of a trade off by having those on patrol away from the front lines and unable/unwilling to support their teams attack.

ComradeHX wrote:IMO, insurgents should be building Hideouts at any possible location for spawning unknown caches.
That way people spawn in from all over the place and BluFor is going to have a lot of trouble finding caches.

Therefore, people should be able to spawn on the Hideout about 100-200m to the N/NE/E/SE/S/SW/W/NW of unknown cache instead of spawning right on top of it.

It's not like it cost anything to dig up a hideout...just get a squad to a sensible location and build some stuff...

Ja,Your tactical can be used by allied too,build FOB all around the map(Possible Cache location)and wait which fob cant spawn,then send recon squad or set full attack in that area.


But this wont work in Chinese Server,SAGA??I dont know!But RC??no, since our server has too many noobs and dumbs.Unless Insurgents are well organized.

PS:Why you are using the same ingame-ID as my littke sister is??She's also called Remiu.But it's nice to see you here!!Here i cant find any chinese from mainland else.

Jolly wrote:Ja,Your tactical can be used by allied too,build FOB all around the map(Possible Cache location)and wait which fob cant spawn,then send recon squad or set full attack in that area.


But this wont work in Chinese Server,SAGA??I dont know!But RC??no, since our server has too many noobs and dumbs.Unless Insurgents are well organized.

PS:Why you are using the same ingame-ID as my littke sister is??She's also called Remiu.But it's nice to see you here!!Here i cant find any chinese from mainland else.

FOB limit is the only thing stopping BluFor from doing that.

That, and spreading out people to defend those FOB would mean less people actively searching for the cache. Otherwise the FOB are not so well-defended and...
Two days ago on =SAGA= public server(not #2), on Al basrah I stabbed a FOB, killed two machinegunners who were too busy slinging 50cal bullets into the city, and got a few british kit's worth of incendiary grenades and wasted all of those structures.
I was using a cell leader's kit to help a sniper, but he was killed by APC near the FOB and I was not spotted, so I got to the FOB and killed it.

Basically BluFor on the server are also bad...depending on which side has more =SAGA= members, it may change.

Oh, and our server has a distinct lack of mumble. =SAGA= needs to see its effectiveness and set up a server for it.

My IGN is Hakuei Reimu(it is missing an r in "Hakurei" because the real name was registered by someone else...same with Reisen Inaba, Izayoi Sakuya, and Remilia Scarlet...).