Project Reality Forums

Pfunk is right. If you dont defend on ins and play it smart, you wont get anything done. Leaving the unknown undefended is also rediculous, cause when they do find it and you notice the spawn point is gone: you just gave blufor a free cache. Its not all about defending though. To further increase ticket drain, theres a wholebunch of nasty things you can do to the attacker.

A good, organized round of Ins is fun and extremely interesting for a CO. I know this cause Ive done Ins in just about every way possible: Clanmatches, tournaments, events and pub.

so its political on this forum frenzy mod:

is it the way the game is played
or
the way it can be played?

who wins here certain FAITHFUL will defend PR to the death on any issue and it denegrates (?) into an intellectual argument which gets us no where is it policy or public that drives this game mode forward to win as insurgent requires more teamplay END OF!

Kitty, the game used to be played like described by PFunk and me BUT with the recent influx of new players (and whatever other reason I cannot describe) the quality of gameplay has gone down. This is and nothing else is the reason.

People think that unconventional warfare means wandering off on your own.

The problem is that only 2% know how to play right as insurgents. Plus there is additional ROE options you can eqploit, like leaving the kit behind the corner, going out with raised hands and they might face a penalty and so on. Options are endless, but nobody gives a fjord and goes off fighting their own wars.

L4gi wrote:Pfunk is right.

Most sensible thing you've ever said.

A good, organized round of Ins is fun and extremely interesting for a CO. I know this cause Ive done Ins in just about every way possible: Clanmatches, tournaments, events and pub.

Would be wicked if anybody actually acknowledged that a CO is even useful anymore. Its all part of the rot in the player base's mindest.

Arnoldio wrote:People think that unconventional warfare means wandering off on your own.

The problem is that only 2% know how to play right as insurgents.

If you look at how successful guerilla forces have fought in history there sure as shit isn't any lack of coordination and organization. Compared to conventional massed forces they're down right nimble. The problem is that this style of play more than any other is about patience. Patience is not something that people take to easily.

I think if more small unit leaders in PR were inclined to just sit their squad in one position for extended periods then you could see some changes in attitude for the better. A perfect example was one time on Kokan a buddy was SLing a squad and we had 4 other pubbies and at round start we just hopped a boat down river, got out, occupied a building, and sat put. Intel revealed a cache far away, Kiowa blew it away before we could even decide to move out and so we decided to wait for intel or for some opportunity.

Within a few minutes we engaged targets right outside our building, they directed a couple squads to attack us, we held them off, wiped the floor with them, and contributed to gathering a lot of intel that revealed that of all things THE CACHE WAS RIGHT NEXT DOOR! We then took out a cache and took no friendly deaths and gathered about 20 squad kills and lord knows how much intel. All of that from just sitting put and waiting for chance to come to us.

I should also point out that the above is an example of playing differently than most BLUFOR like to play. In effect we ambushed the Insurgents and beat them at their own game. They threw themselves onto us and we took the free kills. In effect there should be little difference for INS doing the same to BLUFOR. If INS had actually been defending their cache they would have seen us coming and blown us away. Instead we took up a position their defense should have centred on and eventually they piecemeal attacked us on their own cache position.

How was one squad able to destroy a cache and face little actual resistance over a period exceeding 10 minutes? If they'd had even a shred of good sense about them they'd have mopped us up. As BLUFOR we kicked *** without having to resort to armor or superior numbers or even a whole lot of maneuver. We just let them screw up on their own and we took the free money.

Playing Insurgents however I don't detect much better play on the average BLUFOR player. So I don't know why a little patience can't be promulgated. There are so many interesting things, as L4gi said, to do as INS when you're coordinating.

People should grasp the ide athat you can in fact attack AND defend at the same time. Good defense and sneaky INS ambushing and other offensive actions can be accomplish at the same time. Go figure.

Saying that insurgents can be played better doesn't really help in discussions like this, as the original poster says.. "...even when they(blufor) are total incompetent they will win." Even when you have a great insurgent team, if the blufor team doesn't want to lose, they usually don't. Blufor get so many tickets, they don't need to start conserving them until they start losing badly.

Maybe the blufor should start with around 75 tickets. They already get one known cache at the start of the round, so best case scenario they would have 100 tickets to put towards getting intel on the first unknown. It would give them 32 tickets per cache, compared the current amount of 57. And similar to version 0.8 amount of 34.

The odds are stacked against the insurgents in combat, and that's what the gamemode is all about. But insurgents killed give too much intel and blufor can die too much. The combat is great, the politics not so much.

I'd even suggest a new twist on the gamemode where caches aren't as valuable. So maybe 20 or more would be needed for victory, with 5 or more on the map at once. So the insurgent team couldn't turtle on one or two caches. Encouraging the blufor to stick together somewhat to realistically use their numbers/equipment advantage. But, larger groups of blufor mean better ambushes and intense firefights. But, that's not really a solution to this threads problem.

man...rambo style guys wandering around to score kills while the main objective is illusive for them to grasp..
insurgency means watching a key entrance for 2 hrs... whole point of AMBUSH is 75% patience and 25% tactical inspiration...basically means, set an ambush point and WAIT...cause if you go out, guns blazing you will end up dead almost everytime.
Been so many post of strike&RUN tactics, or AMBUSH that Im wondering if we should chat in mandarin instead...will have same effect
Only 2 cons for insurgency are unknown caches spawns and cache locations( KARBALA ?? ) other than that insurgents are perfectly capable of winning and even more.
Even on Karbala, with all current Bluefor assets, INS wil win 99% if caches aren't in some god damn awfull locations, which give an extra advantage to bluefor....that map needs an statics/cache spawns overhaul badly
Why was rpg nerfed/hard to use for ins? you do not do that for a underpowered faction.
What insurgency lacks badly is comprehension of ambush/hit&run tactics on some players.

FACT: Insurgents CAN and will WIN. Reconsider, each individual, your actions in general context, and improve your tactics... AAS or vanilla tactics are deadly for insurgents.

Insurgency doesn't need to be modified...player base is to blame...is to blame for the biggest "flaw"in the gamemode..ghosting

INS is all about quick movement and surprise. Maybe one squad a bit back to provide some harassing fire but the other must be ready to blow the IED and swarm the area from all sides. Constantly move around the buildings, like ants, to disorient enemies. People in the technicals, never let go of W button, just navigate the streets, again disorient and inflict as much damage as possible with the 50. If you stop, there is a good chance youll get destroyed.

And so on.

A lot of 'the playerbase was better before', 'this is how you should have fun', made up statistics and delusions of grandeur in this thread. You're all full of shit.
Ghosting's a problem, as is the rule preventing people from spawning on unknowns. Anything else I don't have a problem with, INS seems to win most games on pub anyway.

=LK= A.H. wrote:A lot of 'the playerbase was better before', 'this is how you should have fun', made up statistics and delusions of grandeur in this thread. You're all full of shit.
Ghosting's a problem, as is the rule preventing people from spawning on unknowns. Anything else I don't have a problem with, INS seems to win most games on pub anyway.

Ghosting was always a problem, yet the most issues came up within the last year. What can we conclude out of this? Did they change any major game mechanics? No. Did they adapt a new cache system? No. Guess whats left to blame, I'll give you a hint, the players.

The rule of not spawning on unknowns is retarded. That is like saying: Do not defend the flag youre supposed to, but rather just attack the one you have to attack and hold that one.

If there is ghosting and if the unknown is defended, then there wouldnt be a problem.

Arnoldio wrote:If there is ghosting and if the unknown is defended, then there wouldnt be a problem.

Precisely, just shows which way (the wrong way) the community is going when servers apply rules like "no spawning on unknowns".

Brainlaag wrote:Precisely, just shows which way (the wrong way) the community is going when servers apply rules like "no spawning on unknowns".

I don't think that's strictly the players' fault. Many a time I have just walked near an unknown and the admins have killed me with a big warning text "DO NOT SPAWN ON UNKNOWNS". That's sure to keep them from noticing the cache, surely it's the players who are the problem.

The PR team itself does not regard players highly in terms of intellect, why else would vehicles kill occupants without proper kits/operating them solo?

Insurgency is, and has been for a long time, in this odd place where public games tend to be biased towards blufor, but organised games tend to be biased towards Insurgents.

As for whether you blame the players or not, I always tend towards the Valve design philosophy. You read interviews with Valve designers about playtesting HL2 or whatever, and if someone is confused or doesn't know where to go or what to do next they never blame the player. They'll tweak the level design, give visual or audio cues, whatever. The buck should always stop with the design and the designers.

Maybe the player base has gotten stupider, or more likely there are just more newer and inexperienced players around, but the bottom line is design influences player behavior, and when the dynamics of Ins are so hodge-podge and non-sensical, what do you expect?

Web_cole wrote:Insurgency is, and has been for a long time, in this odd place where public games tend to be biased towards blufor, but organised games tend to be biased towards Insurgents.

As for whether you blame the players or not, I always tend towards the Valve design philosophy. You read interviews with Valve designers about playtesting HL2 or whatever, and if someone is confused or doesn't know where to go or what to do next they never blame the player. They'll tweak the level design, give visual or audio cues, whatever. The buck should always stop with the design and the designers.

Maybe the player base has gotten stupider, or more likely there are just more newer and inexperienced players around, but the bottom line is design influences player behavior, and when the dynamics of Ins are so hodge-podge and non-sensical, what do you expect?

I realize defending is one of the 'secure' ways of playing insurgents, that is, usually the easiest way to actually do well against a decent BLUFOR team. However, it is REALLY boring. The game mode is utter shit in terms of fun for insurgents if you're gonna play to win, at least on public servers (never played organized INS so can't say). Some people in this thread are calling for huge amounts of downtime, what, 75% of 2 hours ? That's way too much.

It's gotten worse as far as that goes, because BLUFOR now tends to not engage known caches, instead they search for unknown caches. This makes the game unfun for both sides. If I'm playing BLUFOR, I cringe when a SL decides we should look for unknowns, because it's goddamn boring. It's okay to check areas you're passing through while attempting an assault, but to deliberately go out of your way and search remote locations of the map for 30+ minutes is really, really boring. I actually used to do this as a combat engineer, but after getting enough of this cheap thrill of finding an undefended cache, I decided it's more fun to try to sneak into a defended cache.

Same shit goes for playing as insurgents. I used to be the 'defender', sitting for long periods of time with little action, but that's not fun. Instead I decided to start roaming with packs of other insurgents, looking for action. Turns out you can get alot of fun firefights from doing this, but in the end it may not be the best tactic in terms of winning.

Sure there's ambushes, fake caches, raids etc. but that's hard to come by on pubs.

Anyway, I was saying how the search for unknowns sucks for both sides because of the decreased number of fighting going on. This can be reversed with allowing people to spawn on unknowns, but that kinda nullifies the whole point of how the game mode works now. I think it's time to change it a bit.

I don't know exactly how, but you want to rettain the differences in how you play BLUFOR and insurgents while making the game mode dynamic, that is, not boring as hell, and balanced.

What I'm thinking of is something like having preset cache locations - cache locations that are balanced, or at least overall balanced (by 'overall balanced' I mean, for example, having an equal number of caches in remote locations and number of caches in cities). You can also have different layouts for different combinations of preset cache locations to avoid the map becoming stale, or maybe even have it work like AAS - certain caches are always on the map, while others change depending on a random selection between a group of different cache locations.

The point is, both sides know about all the caches, but BLUFOR could only destroy 1 or 2 caches at a time before proceeding to the others. This would basically be an AAS where one side defends. The problem of long downtime would still be present here, though. There could be some kind of objective insurgents can target, or there could be a timer that would force BLUFOR to attack faster (not 4 hours). Maybe make it so each cache destroyed/conquered would add more time to the timer. I'm not even sure if this is doable in terms of engine limitations, and this is just a 'sketch' of the idea, but I think I'm on the right path at least.

Would appreciate if you guys could link any threads and posts that you encountered that have discussed similar ideas of making INS more dynamic. Might even make a thread about it soon if I come up with something better

Wholly depends on the map. Tunnels = camp and get a million kills and they never get cache unless you glitch clays into the wall. But its easy as long as everyone defends.

Qadis wrote:Would appreciate if you guys could link any threads and posts that you encountered that have discussed similar ideas of making INS more dynamic. Might even make a thread about it soon if I come up with something better

I had a similar idea a while ago... https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... ost1656630

Edit:

Brainlaag wrote:Ghosting was always a problem, yet the most issues came up within the last year. What can we conclude out of this? Did they change any major game mechanics? No. Did they adapt a new cache system? No. Guess whats left to blame, I'll give you a hint, the players.

Reducing the number of caches from 10 to 7 and increasing the ticket reward from 10 to 25 is a pretty major change in the game mechanics.....no?

Qadis wrote:Would appreciate if you guys could link any threads and posts that you encountered that have discussed similar ideas of making INS more dynamic. Might even make a thread about it soon if I come up with something better

Well, I actually made a suggestion a few months back where I make a bunch of the points you just brought up, so yeah, I 100% agree with you.

Here it is btw.

Brainlaag wrote:Precisely, just shows which way (the wrong way) the community is going when servers apply rules like "no spawning on unknowns".

That rule is from he 0.7 era where people did it as to not give the unknown away. It's fine to walk to it and place a FOB. But if we get a bunch of pubbers spawning on it they'll give it away.

Now though people tend to "Stumble" upon unknowns.

badmojo420 wrote:I had a similar idea a while ago... https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... ost1656630

Edit:


Reducing the number of caches from 10 to 7 and increasing the ticket reward from 10 to 25 is a pretty major change in the game mechanics.....no?

I meant in the past 6 months, since all the "rage and complaint threads" popped up (all within release of 0.973), read it out next time.