Project Reality Forums

RAWSwampFox wrote:Good Evening,

I am a bit surprised but then again not, by the attacks on myself. While I may have opened the door with my original post, why attack me instead of providing thoughtful responses? That aside, regardless of how you feel about me, I would love to hear and see more thoughtful responses.

He said that you should stop playing unfair which is a pretty thoughtful response imho. Don't punt so obvious, you're the problem here with your childish gameplay behavior.

Ninjas with Specialist kit DETECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blueforce have APC, IFV, CAS and 5 or 6 specialist in the field, but when insurgents have barricades.......

BlackGus wrote:Blueforce have APC, IFV, CAS and 5 or 6 specialist in the field, but when insurgents have barricades.......

Opfor have infinite tickets and a dedicated griefing kit. At the end of the day they can always afford to drown a Blue offensive in bodies and come out ahead. No amount of fancy gadgets or impressive strategery can counter an enemy that can't be killed.

There's maybe only three/four out of however many cache locations are on any given map that can be completely sealed off by using roadblocks. Rarely are there ever two fully roadblockable caches at the same time, so that always leaves one easily accessible cache for blufor.

I truly do not understand how Blufor fails to win every Insurgency round.

After playing 99.7% Redfor for the last couple years these five steps are all any half-competent Blufor team needs:

1. Have commander use UAV and find area where SwampFox and the Noobs are building roadblocks
2. Build FOBs close to area with roadblocks then set up .50 cals/TOW aimed there
3. APC's and tank to support while building FOB's then direct fire towards cache
3. Mortar the absolute piss out of cache area
4. Area attack for further devastation
5. Secure cache building, destroy roadblocks, THENNN place C4

It's not rocket science and the addition of roadblocks has exposed INS is not a broken game mode, but really it's the Blufor team's mindset that is broken (for reasons the wise Granderslice has already listed).

Roadblocks were a pretty nice addition to the insurgents imo.
I have to agree that having lots of road blocks all over a cache make's it op, specially on the more dense city areas. But they give some interesting tactical possibilities like blocking choke points, put them for cover on wide open streets so ins can cross and reinforce a cache, shoot rpgs/spgs from it giving them the ability to offer some resistance against the bluefor on open ground.
So a good fix to it would be to make roadblocks spawnable only at a 25m - 40m distance from cache location.

'[at wrote:Vio-Lence;2096724']
1. Have commander use UAV and find area where SwampFox and the Noobs are building roadblocks
2. Build FOBs close to area with roadblocks then set up .50 cals/TOW aimed there
3. APC's and tank to support while building FOB's then direct fire towards cache
3. Mortar the absolute piss out of cache area
4. Area attack for further devastation
5. Secure cache building, destroy roadblocks, THENNN place C4

On Fallujah, which is by far the most commonly-played maps, most of those tactics are invalid because it's a dense urban environment.

fatalsushi83 wrote:On Fallujah, which is by far the most commonly-played maps, most of those tactics are invalid because it's a dense urban environment.

How so? The only thing the U.S. doesn't get are mortars.

FOB supply routes are easily contestable.

FOB lines of sight are poor, you can't just "set up .50 cals" aimed at a given location.

Armored units are rolling funeral pyres in the city proper. RKGs, RPGs, IEDs, bomb cars, armored units are massively vulnerable to all of them when in built up terrain.

Area attacks frequently bug out near buildings, a one inch plywood wall can block that damage not infrequently. Plus they're not available for every cache attempt.

'[at wrote:Vio-Lence;2096724']
3. Mortar the absolute piss out of cache area
4. Area attack for further devastation.

All fun and games till 20 civies sit in your devastation.

I think its safe to say that the Devs did not put ROADblocks into the game to be used like that. If we could get an official Dev statement on that would be great.


Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Just my 2 cents here.

I believe that roadblocks should be used to block roads and entrances (hence the word road in "roadblock") NOT to be placed on top of caches, put on top of ladders and have roadblock bridges floating in the air, *cough cough*,
So in other words the underside of the roadblock; the flat part (or at least large portions of it) should not be visible. Other than that, blocking off every entrance to the cache, for example the small holes in tall walls, or alleys, and doors should be acceptable, as covering grenades and other methods of damaging the people and things behind the roadblock that may be digging them back up.

curahee150 wrote:Just my 2 cents here.

I believe that roadblocks should be used to block roads and entrances (hence the word road in "roadblock") NOT to be placed on top of caches, put on top of ladders and have roadblock bridges floating in the air, *cough cough*,
So in other words the underside of the roadblock; the flat part (or at least large portions of it) should not be visible. Other than that, blocking off every entrance to the cache, for example the small holes in tall walls, or alleys, and doors should be acceptable, as covering grenades and other methods of damaging the people and things behind the roadblock that may be digging them back up.

Good Evening,

To use your logic which I understand, ANY placeable asset should not be able to be placed anywhere but on the road. This would mean that any TOW, AA, HMG, Mortar, etc., should only be placed on flat road/dirt surfaces regardless of any term associated with the particular asset in question. Any placeable asset in PR can be suspended in mid-air, been able to do that since .75 or before. From my understanding, it is a game mechanic issue.

Regarding devs making an official statement, they never do and probably never will. You can only catch hints at various things. For example, my FOB guide, within 2 days, the code was changed and I caught the hint by one dev posting one singular word, "excellent". Didn't get a peep out of any dev after that. It's just the way they are.

RAWSwampFox wrote:Regarding devs making an official statement, they never do and probably never will.

I've been meaning to reply to this thread but haven't had the time to read all the way though it and still haven't but since the posts keep on coming I doubt I'm going to read all of it so just skipping though it here is a somewhat official statement on the matter for you.


Roadblocks where never intended to be used as "ladders to haven" and to be stacked on top of each other and across buildings etc (although we did foresee this would happen) but unfortunately there wasn't anything we could do about it before we released them since they use the same code and logic (with a few additions for randomisation) as other deployables.

In time I would like to change how deployables work a bit to stop them from being stacked on top of each other and also to be placed off the sides of buildings with 90% of the deployable floating in the sky etc. But since BF2 was never designed to handle deployables and we just hacked a method in, if we can do this or not is another matter but hopefully something we will be able to fix in time. Until then there isn't anything we can do to stop you and its really up to the server admins to decide if they want you doing this or not but all I'm going to say on that front is they where only meant to block roads/passages, denying access to areas effectively and to provide cover to insurgent forces and nothing more.

Finally as for placing roadblocks on top of ammo caches, while some can see some potential in this, there are a few problems with doing this. Firstly there is a risk of destroying the cache while trying to deploy the roadblock on top of the cache. If you succeed in placing a roadblock on top, then it can block the insurgents from resupplying and getting kits of the ammo cache, and also possibly blocking the spawn on the cache. All of which are extremely negative side effects for the insurgent forces from just trying to hide the cache a little and then its debatable if it has any positive effect for the insurgents even without it destroying it or blocking it as some INS players can't find it easily and from what I've seen it still isn't that much harder for BlueFor to work out where it is and destroy it. At the end of the day the hard part is clearing the insurgents out of the area the cache is in to be able to destroy it and a roadblock on top of the cache can from what I've seen, only actually make it harder for insurgents to defend the area with not being able to get their special kits and resupply off of it. So ye, I'm not convinced and with there being a chance of destroying the cache though doing it, not something I would encourage just for that reason alone.


Cheers.

RAWSwampFox wrote:Good Evening,

To use your logic which I understand, ANY placeable asset should not be able to be placed anywhere but on the road. This would mean that any TOW, AA, HMG, Mortar, etc., should only be placed on flat road/dirt surfaces regardless of any term associated with the particular asset in question. Any placeable asset in PR can be suspended in mid-air, been able to do that since .75 or before. From my understanding, it is a game mechanic issue.

Regarding devs making an official statement, they never do and probably never will. You can only catch hints at various things. For example, my FOB guide, within 2 days, the code was changed and I caught the hint by one dev posting one singular word, "excellent". Didn't get a peep out of any dev after that. It's just the way they are.

What? How did you get that logic, I never said anything about other deployable only roadblocks. How do you get things like this even though people don't say anything about it?Are you making up stuff?

yeah, that's definitely not what curahee was sayin

Good Morning,

Curahee, it was a reference to the logic of using or placing things based on only their name as a flawed logic, in my opinion. While I took it a bit further, I still think using just the term roadblock to support the logic is flawed. My opinion.

You're trying to argue with someone who belies it's a legit tactic to make civis martys by jumping from on top of buildings onto your moving vehicle.

You won't win.

His logic is flawed.

Andersson wrote:What granderslice said.
War is not fair. Yes.. I know this is a ''game''. Insurgents use whatever tactics and techniques to make it a bad day for their opponents.

My two cents.

By that logic, I should be able to camp your main with my mortars and apc.

There a thing called balance.

Good Morning,

It boils down to this, regardless of whatever logic may be applied, if you think it is cheating/glitching/exploiting/whatever, you will always think so regardless of any discussion.

@comedyink, martyrdom is an inclusive term that includes death by any means necessary to further the cause in a simple manner of words.

Thank you for all your time guys, I've seen enough myself. I personally play the game for fun and not so I can become an armchair soldier who knows every kind of military term and tactic. I try to remember that it is just a game which is hard at times in the moment of spirited discussion.

RAWSwampFox wrote:Good Morning,

It boils down to this, regardless of whatever logic may be applied, if you think it is cheating/glitching/exploiting/whatever, you will always think so regardless of any discussion.

@comedyink, martyrdom is an inclusive term that includes death by any means necessary to further the cause in a simple manner of words.

Thank you for all your time guys, I've seen enough myself. I personally play the game for fun and not so I can become an armchair soldier who knows every kind of military term and tactic. I try to remember that it is just a game which is hard at times in the moment of spirited discussion.

Honestly, I think Swamp brings his own brand of gameplay to PR. Whenever I see him playing on the insurgent team, I know I have to be aware of what I am doing, especially around civis.

I do find the roadblocks easily exploitable at this point, but it spices things up a bit. I've seen the basement of the asylum's eastern entrance on Fallujah blocked off by two or three roadblocks. It was a pain in the *** to get through, but I don't necessarily see it not being possible to do in real life. You could shovel rubbish into that hallway, it just seems unrealistic since the deployable "extends" outside the walls by 2 or 3 meters in each direction.

The deployable ladder from building to building is exploiting IMO, and server admins should not allow it, but it's hard to police things like this.

I'm all for new things being added to PR and seeing how it plays out for a time before striking it down.

ComedyInK wrote:There a thing called balance.

Not in Insurgency.

RAWSwampFox wrote:Good Morning,

Curahee, it was a reference to the logic of using or placing things based on only their name as a flawed logic, in my opinion. While I took it a bit further, I still think using just the term roadblock to support the logic is flawed. My opinion.

My logic there was not entirely that using assets should be used based only on their name. It was deploy-able assets, more specifically roadblocks should not be used to completed block and put on top of caches, block of ladders and be floating in the air.

Just to ask, what do you think an acceptable use of a road block is?