Project Reality Forums

Celestial1 wrote: The insurgents are a force in the area; they are the every-day citizens fighting back at what they believe are oppressors, and aren't going to 'disappear' from the area in all likelyhood.

Heard of the War on Terror mate?

SkaterCrush wrote:Heard of the War on Terror mate?

You can quell the insurgency, you can kill a whole ton of insurgents, but there is likely to be a lot more insurgents on their way or just waiting to get into the fight. Yeah, you can stop an insurgency in an area but it's very hard to do considering the current situations.

Insurgents aren't necessarily terrorists. Insurgents are part of an armed rebellion aiming to overthrow or remove the authority in the area. In this case, the insurgents are likely a mix of both people trying to protect their homelands, thinking that the armies are invading their area and are oppressing them, and the actual terrorists that are using them in the fight or putting these kinds of thoughts into their heads to get them to fight alongside them.


Please, do realize that this thread isn't for you to be a hot-head about political topics, etc.

This thread is for discussing the idea at hand, so please, unless you have an actual comment on how you think the idea would play out in a game, or how it should be changed, do me a favor and refrain from posting in this thread.

So in every scenario, the blufor lose? And in every scenario the insurgents win? That's the way i originally interpreted it. Like a game of AAS with no flags, and one team has unlimited tickets. Sounds like a messed up team deathmatch mode.

And why would coalition sit in one place? Safety. Why would you risk pulling a foot patrol when you can sit around the firebase picking of wondering insurgents at long range. I mean you've already lost, might as well hold out as long as you can right?

badmojo420 wrote:So in every scenario, the blufor lose? And in every scenario the insurgents win? That's the way i originally interpreted it. Like a game of AAS with no flags, and one team has unlimited tickets. Sounds like a messed up team deathmatch mode.

And why would coalition sit in one place? Safety. Why would you risk pulling a foot patrol when you can sit around the firebase picking of wondering insurgents at long range. I mean you've already lost, might as well hold out as long as you can right?

Yes, they 'lose'... but again, think of it as an arcade game. You rack up as many points as you can... it's not that you lose, but that you got a lot of 'points' before doing so. There's still no further incentive for killing insurgents as it doesn't give you anything but intel which reveals caches.

You can't 'win' the original donkey kong, the levels are 'infinite' but point of the game is to gain as many points as you can before dieing. I sure don't see it as a loss when I break a hi-score in a video game, do you?

As for the coalition sitting around, of course, I know this, but how would this change make it any more FREQUENT that it is done (I see coalition building bases and firing from long range on an area all the time in insurgency now, why would it become more FREQUENT because of this suggestion)? The point of current insurgency is still 'to get as many caches as you can', you're just stopped at 10. Coalition will still camp and pick off insurgents from afar to gather intel, etc, it's not like it's a new thing to the gamemode.

Celestial1 wrote:Yes, they 'lose'... but again, think of it as an arcade game.

If I wanted an arcade game I'd time warp back to the 80s

And if I wanted a game where 'teh gewd gais' always win I'd go play one of the 100s of games where you're the superleetspecops that saves the world

SkaterCrush wrote:If I wanted an arcade game I'd time warp back to the 80s

Maybe you didn't catch it the first time I said it. Do me a favor, and please REFRAIN from posting in this thread unless you have something productive to add. You're not doing yourself any good, and you're only throwing out comments that show your age.

A lot of people playing and making games like this are the ones who grew up in the arcade generation, arcade games something that we are fond of.

And if I wanted a game where 'teh gewd gais' always win I'd go play one of the 100s of games where you're the superleetspecops that saves the world

And thanks for posting that, Outlawz. Saved me some typing.

I seriously don't mind losing, but here bluFOR always looses, and even without this we loose a very good percentage of the time.

[spoiler]Anyways Captain Price dies didn't he?[/spoiler]

edit:eh spoiler tags don't work here...I'll leave them there for understanding...

SkaterCrush wrote:I seriously don't mind losing, but here bluFOR always looses, and even without this we loose a very good percentage of the time.

[spoiler]Anyways Captain Price dies didn't he?[/spoiler]

edit:eh spoiler tags don't work here...I'll leave them there for understanding...

The SAS still won and killed Zakhaev, even if all but Soap died in the end.

Seriously, man, stop posting. You're just not contributing to the thread. Once you have something to contribute, then you should post about it. Till then, please, just stop. You're cluttering the thread with repetitive nonsense.

If the team was one person, that logic would work. But if you give a group of people no clear goal, a team score that doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100 because there is no declared winner at the end. And then throw in a whole stats system of personal kills, deaths, and teamwork(helping others get kills) and what you'll end up with is a bunch of people who only care how much better their squads k/d ratio is than Alphas.

And what about the insurgents? If the blufor never come to play, they are forced to hunt them down? That's not very insurgent-like. I thought it was the other way around?

Basically, if you give an individual the means to make a difference for his team overall, he will strive to do his best. But, if you make him powerless to the outcome and make dying his only action that has a bearing on the teams outcome, his only choice for truly helping the team is to hide and not die.

Well then my parting comment will be that

"Why would anyone play this?". People want to win, why would people play something where you can't win (at least as bluFOR). If people wanted to play an arcade game they wouldn't want to play the 2008 ModDB Mod of the Year game, they would go play CSS or something. My age? Really? Your the one shooting out suggestions like diarrhea after eating a barrel of Ex-Lax





P.S.


CoD4 Sucked ***

/endrage

Edit: I willingly take any infraction I get because frankly I think I deserve it

Stay calm gents. Just have a nice calm chat about the topic at hand.

badmojo420 wrote:If the team was one person, that logic would work. But if you give a group of people no clear goal, a team score that doesn't matter if it's 1 or 100 because there is no declared winner at the end. And then throw in a whole stats system of personal kills, deaths, and teamwork(helping others get kills) and what you'll end up with is a bunch of people who only care how much better their k/d ratio is than Alpha squads.

And what about the insurgents? If the blufor never come to play, they are forced to hunt them down? That's not very insurgent-like. I thought it was the other way around?

Basically, if you give an individual the means to make a difference for his team overall, he will strive to do his best. But, if you make him powerless to the outcome and make dying his only action that has a bearing on the teams outcome, his only choice for truly helping the team is to hide and not die.

What is the incentive of finding the caches currently? To win the round? If that is the case, wouldn't breaking a record like 'we got 15 caches, beat that' be the kind of incentive at work here?

The blufor may never come to play in current insurgency scenarios. There's no urgent need for a blufor to rush into the city and get the cache. As long as they aren't wasting tickets, they will camp to hearts content. A bomb car, some mortars, etc are what stop that currently in insurgency, so just like in this altered version, a bomb car or mortars or just any form of overwhelming the blufor would stop that tactic.

Currently on insurgency the reason to camp would be to reduce the loss of tickets. When you have 10 caches to get, you want to ensure that your team has the most amount of time to get those caches as possible. This means that, on more strategic servers, a camping tactic will be adopted. Most notable scenario is on Al Basrah, south of the bridges. The Brits will camp there all day if they don't have a cache in sight. I don't see how this change would cause that to become any -more- frequent than it already is.

SkaterCrush wrote:Well then my parting comment will be that

"Why would anyone play this?". People want to win, why would people play something where you can't win (at least as bluFOR). If people wanted to play an arcade game they wouldn't want to play the 2008 ModDB Mod of the Year game, they would go play CSS or something. My age? Really? Your the one shooting out suggestions like diarrhea after eating a barrel of Ex-Lax


P.S.


CoD4 Sucked ***

/endrage

Edit: I willingly take any infraction I get because frankly I think I deserve it

Again, your age is showing through this post. I don't have to look at a profile or anything to see that you are either young, or extremely immature no matter what your age, especially when you use a kind of metaphor like 'shooting out suggestions like diarrhea'.

I never knew CSS was an arcade game, either. And I don't know where you got the idea that I would care what you say about CoD4, I was only showing you that your example was a pretty... well, there's no other way to say it, it was a stupid example.

And for your 'Why would anyone play this?' comment, I emplore you to go find a retro arcade where they have old games like Galaga or Donkey Kong. If you can't find one of those, you can always find a Galaga knock-off somewhere online, and Donkey Kong knock-offs aren't too hard to find either.

Or, best yet... have you ever played Mario for the NES? Please, let me know when you get to the final level of the game. I still haven't gotten there.

[R-COM]Tiny wrote:Stay calm gents. Just have a nice calm chat about the topic at hand.

I would love to, but he couldn't seem to leave it be without having the final word on the matter.

the only problem the coaltion has, they are always building firebases and not doing anything.
they just camp and try and kill people, nothing will change. players are hardcoded.

Assets should be changed, on maps like al basrah and such the coalition just gets into heavy vehicles and start shooting everything they see, insurgency could be so much better with only light vehicles and sometimes a helicopter(s), in my opinion

also, why are people so hostile against eachother doesnt solve anything
it breaks my heart joke

Alright this has to stop, i reply to this thread while you reply to the other. It's madness!!!

Anyway, winning the round is your reward for displaying great amounts of team work to overcome the enemy and prevail. And that's what i want to win for. To be a part of something great. To look back on that round and remember the fun and memories. I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true. Some games people brag about getting XX number of kills and whatnot. But with PR players it takes a paragraph or two to brag about an epic round you had. And i feel like this system would head in another direction from that.

It's an okay system, but it needs clear goals. You can't just turn PR into an arcade game with high scores, that's not what PR is about. This is my opinion, there are many like it, but this one is mine.

Now i need to get some sleep so stop trying to convince me of your opinion.

badmojo420 wrote:Alright this has to stop, i reply to this thread while you reply to the other. It's madness!!!

I know. But hey, at least it's keeping you busy.

Anyway, winning the round is your reward for displaying great amounts of team work to overcome the enemy and prevail. And that's what i want to win for. To be a part of something great. To look back on that round and remember the fun and memories. I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true. Some games people brag about getting XX number of kills and whatnot. But with PR players it takes a paragraph or two to brag about an epic round you had. And i feel like this system would head in another direction from that.

Would you not still feel a part of 'something great' if your team managed to destroy 15 caches in a round? Maybe instead of the game saying 'Insurgents won the round', it should just say 'Insurgency Over' or something, then just show a number of how many caches the US destroyed.

It's an okay system, but it needs clear goals. You can't just turn PR into an arcade game with high scores, that's not what PR is about. This is my opinion, there are many like it, but this one is mine.

I'm not saying all of the game modes should adhere to the same principle... and the clear goal is still to destroy caches, that hasn't changed, it's just as clear as it always was, there's just not a defined number.

Now i need to get some sleep so stop trying to convince me of your opinion.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from but you're not elaborating much on why it would be different.

Here... maybe I can help, cause I think I've finally got my head wrapped around it: Are you simply more interested by having an attainable goal? You'd just rather have a set goal as opposed to just trying to get the 'most'?

Its just that a balance has been found in insurgency mode. An asymetrical balance between the coalition losing people and insurgents defending caches. It maybe not be a perfect balance, but you want to throw that out in favor of a game mode where we see how many caches the coalition can destroy before being finished off. There could never be a close game. Either the coalition does bad, or they do good.

In reality insurgents and coalition forces don't say one side won or lost. It's an on-going struggle with no end in sight. But in Project Reality we're all the same, we're gamers, we need feedback for our efforts. Positive feedback when we do good, and negative when we fail. You could think of the 10 caches as a demand from local towns people saying if all the caches are removed from their village they will support the coalition. And they just know there are at least 10.

I don't know what you want me to elaborate on, it's just my opinion that this would make boring gameplay. I could very well be wrong.

The whole arcade game thing is only fun because the challange is the same everytime and you're attempting to beat your own performance in the same circumstances. With varying allies and enemies this purpose is removed. Does getting 20 caches mean you've done well, or you're playing against a bunch of incompetants?

Personally I like the competition. I'd rather win a race than beat my PB, only here, the personal best wouldn't be personal, because of the random team nature of the game, it would be nebulous number without and firm grounding.

That's just my opinion on the matter. Obviously it appears we're going to have to agree to differ.

badmojo420 wrote:Its just that a balance has been found in insurgency mode. An asymetrical balance between the coalition losing people and insurgents defending caches. It maybe not be a perfect balance, but you want to throw that out in favor of a game mode where we see how many caches the coalition can destroy before being finished off. There could never be a close game. Either the coalition does bad, or they do good.

I don't know what you want me to elaborate on, it's just my opinion that this would make boring gameplay. I could very well be wrong.

That top part is what I was trying to get at all this time. Mostly the bottom where you say 'there could never be a close game'. Now I know that you dislike it because it doesn't provide the same kind of 'competition' and the feedback from it. I'll stop bothering you incessantly now.

IAJTHOMAS wrote:The whole arcade game thing is only fun because the challange is the same everytime and you're attempting to beat your own performance in the same circumstances. With varying allies and enemies this purpose is removed. Does getting 20 caches mean you've done well, or you're playing against a bunch of incompetants?

Personally I like the competition. I'd rather win a race than beat my PB, only here, the personal best wouldn't be personal, because of the random team nature of the game, it would be nebulous number without and firm grounding.

That's just my opinion on the matter. Obviously it appears we're going to have to agree to differ.

There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.



Like I originally stated in my post, the reason I have the thread here, in the discussion forums, is because I didn't know how people would adjust, or how they would see it. It has helped to figure out that it's an idea that most people don't quite agree with on paper. If it works out better in play, that'd be great, but it seems to be just as easy to dismiss it due to the reception of it here in the thread.

Feel free to keep discussing, and if you have any ideas toss them in the pile, see if anything interesting can come about.

Okay people ffs. What about the idea previously posted that ins get something like 1000-3000 tickets and loose a certain number like 20-300 tickets for every cache they loose and that the "good gaiz" don't have a set number of caches to take, but every cache they take reduce the ins tickets and make them more likely to loose. And now the ins can loose in another fashion then just "Oh noes they took the magic number of caches". Also makes the insurgency game mode map controllable i think. And the "good gaiz" don't get those frustration looses when they have taken 8 caches and run out of tickets.

Then we still have the winning element that was the mayor Achilles heal in the original idea of this thread.