Project Reality Forums

You're wasting 50-70% of your time either waiting for intelligence, or looking for unknown caches. That's not why I play PR, and I doubt anyone else plays PR because of that.

Saxoni do you waste your time to capture the flag? Or you just play CnC and VW?

Maybe they should make it like this:

On round start, insurgent team has one known cache on the map.

After 5 minutes that cache becomes known to blufor.

Blufor attacks and if successful another cache becomes known on insurgent map but just location with spawn point - no cache.

After blufor gains enough intel points cache will spawn.

After cache spawns and 5 minutes pass after that, cache becomes visible on blufor map.


And so on until they destroy them all or run out of tickets ( die trying )

This may prevent ghosting to some point and stop unknown caches get destroyed before blufor gains enough intel. How is that?

Antol.PL wrote:NO, this is great gamemode but people do not know how to play it. Thats the point.

Its not that people don't know how to play it, its that the mechanics are set up in such a way as to make the players act non-sensically; why attack this heavily defended location (known cache) when I can search for this undefended objective (unknown cache) and easily win the game by doing that?

And on the flip side, why defend the known cache when nobody is attacking it? That seems pointless, and boring to boot. So I guess I'll just go hunt down some Blufor for kicks. Oh, someone eventually destroyed the known cache? Well why wasn't anyone defending it?! etc

This seems relevant:

MaSSive wrote:Saxoni do you waste your time to capture the flag? Or you just play CnC and VW?

I'll assume you're kidding, as everyone should see the difference between capping a flag (which is most likely crowded by enemies) and driving/walking around looking for unknown caches.

If you're not kidding I feel really sorry for you.

What do you mean by fair? Ignoring an unknown cache you've randomly stumbled upon?

Antol.PL wrote:1.Because its not so fun than destroy a normal cache after heavy firefight
I wish people will be fair
2.Because the key to victory is persistence. Sometimes you have to "take matters into their own hands." You have to know what you can afford to fight against good or weak opponent. You must know the priorities to bring your team to victory. A taste of victory in a spectacular way is indescribable.

Fairness doesn't enter into it imo, we are gamers and if there is one thing gamers are good at its gaming the system; if there's a hole somewhere, a glitch, a bug, if some weapon is OP or if something doesn't work as it should you can be damn sure we're going to find it and exploit the fuck out of it

saXoni wrote:I'll assume you're kidding, as everyone should see the difference between capping a flag (which is most likely crowded by enemies) and driving/walking around looking for unknown caches.

If you're not kidding I feel really sorry for you.

I'm not, and I'm sorry that you're sorry

There is no such a big difference in both scenarios you need to kill enemies so you can win. So basically its the same, its just taste that differs and that should not be discussed or questioned.

But as I can see mostly younger population likes to play this mode, especially if they are in blufor and if server admins are allowing too much to blufor. Wont call any names here, but its really annoying to play n insurgent side on some servers.

Anyway I'm not a big fan of insurgency either. Probably the same reason why I'm posting anything here today cause it quite obvious there is a problem. Were here to solve it right?

So you're saying that AAS and Insurgency is basically the same thing?

Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for yourself.

saXoni wrote:So you're saying that AAS and Insurgency is basically the same thing?

Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for yourself.

Oh well ok...I guess I will be in grief some time of myself <- LOL

Antol.PL wrote:1. Ignore intels about unknown caches. Focus on known cache or eliminate enemy for intel (something like hunting )
2. You must known what is fair is some rounds.
Like "Swedge's Cheeky ******* Strategy Guide for PR:Arma 2 Beta". He said about "judgement call". Ask self: Whether it be fair? Then your answer will be: Yes or Not. You have to feel it.

Thats a fantasy. Do tennis players feel bad about serving Aces because its "unfair" to serve a shot the other player has no chance of returning? Of course they don't. PR is a competitive game, whatever you can do to win (within the accepted rules of the game/community, e.g. we as a community have decided glitching inside a static object is cheating, but putting crates through a wall is not cheating) is fair play.

The game allows you to hunt for unknown caches and to win that way, therefore its fair to do so. Its an example of emergent strategy, the game was not intended to be played that way, but it works, so thats the way it is played.

Whilst I think its fair to do so, I agree its broken. In fact, I linked to a suggestion I made on this same subject just up-thread

MaSSive wrote: On round start, insurgent team has one known cache on the map.

After 5 minutes that cache becomes known to blufor.

Blufor attacks and if successful another cache becomes known on insurgent map but just location with spawn point - no cache.

After blufor gains enough intel points cache will spawn.

After cache spawns and 5 minutes pass after that, cache becomes visible on blufor map.


And so on until they destroy them all or run out of tickets ( die trying )

This may prevent ghosting to some point and stop unknown caches get destroyed before blufor gains enough intel. How is that?

I like it
I guess, we will need to make a topic in suggestions forums as soon as we find the best way.

Actually I just finished reading Webcole's suggestion and its quite fitting mine.

Read it here https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... ation.html

@admin please merge topic with this one and move to suggestions

The obvious solution for Insurgents.... defend both caches.

Seriously, I'm tired of playing Insurgency rounds and as soon as an "unknown" cache is destroyed there are accusations of ghosting. On a full server (32v32), there are more than enough bodies to defend both caches, especially on 1km or 2km maps. You can split it down the middle with 16 guys at one and 16 guys at the other. However, I recommend something like everyone at the "known" cache except for a full squad of six at the "unknown".

I know some of you are saying, "Wait Desmo. Those six guys defending the unknown will probably get bored as hell." Maybe. But I usually have my guys grab a .50 cal technical and do some fast recon with it. 3 guys load up in the technical and the other 3 sit with 50 meters of the cache. The technical crew patrols a perimeter anywhere from 200-400 meters for 10-15 minutes and then the two 3 man teams switch. It's the best way to avoid boredom if you're tasked to defend the "unknown" cache. Now, if the 6 man squad is threatened with being overrun, simple. Simply request in chat/VOIP/Mumble for some help. Have another 6 man squad designated as a QRF and bam! They come blazing in and you now have 12 bodies on the "unknown" with 20 others at the other cache.

So, in short, defend both caches! I don't want to see anymore "Stay away from the unknown purple cache noob!" remarks in chat. There are two caches on the map at any given time, so defend both. Anyone remember how tough it was when there were three caches on the map? Insurgency is a great gamemode (if the unscoped INS weapons had some slight zoom like in FH2, I would dare say the BEST gamemode). It just takes a different approach than AAS and utilizes more varied tactics.

I know this might sound wtf, but why not have one cache on map at a time. Ghosting issue solved. After each destroyed cache, the new cache will become known for the blufor after a minute or two so that insurgents have time to organize. This will ofcourse piss off the honest cache hunters that walk around frequent cache spawn locations on maps, but thats it. Will it do anything to the balance?

There are far too many caches on maps that are impossible to take out if properly defended. Cave caches on Lashkar, for example. The only way to win a round as Blufor if one of those caches becomes known is to find unknowns.
So yes, it will do something with the balance.

saXoni wrote:There are far too many caches on maps that are impossible to take out if properly defended. Cave caches on Lashkar, for example. The only way to win a round as Blufor if one of those caches becomes known is to find unknowns.
So yes, it will do something with the balance.

Dammit Sax, read my whole suggestion

Web_cole wrote:Cache Timer

I think I saw Rudd say something along these lines once; make it so that caches will disappear after 30/45 minutes. This would count as the Insurgents having successfully defended and "moved" the cache. This would largely be to allow the Blufor to still win if the Ins get an easily defended cache location.

As above the new cache location would become known after 5 minutes, to give the Ins time to set up Hideouts etc. Blufor would still have to destroy X amount of caches (however many makes sense with this system, possibly a lot less than with the current one.)

You know I love it when those guys "defending the unknown" get trigger happy as soon as they see any blufor (I'm looking at you RPG guy that gave away a million and one unknowns). It's quite a double edged sword on both sides of the field. Insurgents have to weigh the pros and cons of defending unknowns, and it's a huge pain trying to get any coordination with your average INS team.

On the flip side unknown hunters (ya, that's how we roll) often follow false leads taking them all the way across the map sight seeing, there are plenty of insurgents who setup ambushes or fake caches to lure enemy forces in. Blufor can easily squander tickets chasing phantom caches, in fact it's much more common to get sucked into a pointless firefight then finding an undefended unknown.

I do agree Insurgent Mode can easily be broken and I know plenty of us are upset this has not been addressed, but one should stop to consider how the alternatives would actually play out before we make suggestions (the area of the forums this thread actually should be).

I believe a one cache concept would not make use of the maps accordingly, nor would it be plausible in a 120 player environment. Taking the variety of maps into consideration having the insurgents focus their numbers in one location would be just as unbalanced as the ghosting issue at hand, we need 2 caches to split the INS attention enough to give the blu guys a decent shot. Just last night I played as insurgents on Iron Ridge and we defended the first known cache for roughly 2 hours before the round ended, not to mention it was the layer with a tank and btr80s. It is a prime example of how blufor needs a 2nd objective to force the defenders to split, and it's only one of many incidents that I can recount.

The fact is that those ghosting at round start because they wanted to go blufor could only possibly expose the first unknown, while those continually finding them are often a well coordinated team responding to any solid intel (be it via map marks, team chat, or SL mumble). The screenshot Web posted we have found 5 of the other 6 caches thanks to our quick and sneaky response to any and all threats.

On almost every server ghosting is really a non-issue, and after all if you don't like the exploitable mechanics you don't have to worry the map will be changing soon enough.

I think I saw Rudd say something along these lines once; make it so that caches will disappear after 30/45 minutes. This would count as the Insurgents having successfully defended and "moved" the cache. This would largely be to allow the Blufor to still win if the Ins get an easily defended cache location.

As above the new cache location would become known after 5 minutes, to give the Ins time to set up Hideouts etc. Blufor would still have to destroy X amount of caches (however many makes sense with this system, possibly a lot less than with the current one.)

I LIEK IT!