killonsight95 wrote:to defend against a lone wolf someone would ahve to stay on the cache at all times which becomes very boring and irl on person doesn't destroy a cache.
Boring? Tough man, flying an attack helicopter properly is boring. Sniping correctly is boring.
Playing the game realistically is boring because realism isn't about 45 minutes of action 15 minutes of waiting. It's 55 minutes of waiting and 5 minutes of action, followed by another 60 minutes of explaining your actions to a superior and filling out forms. The real test is how fun are those minutes of action you get. I get the same adrenaline rush sneaking up on an APC, arty IED in hand as I do low walking through some city slum ally, pressing in on the sound of RPG fire and gunfire, knowing victory is close at hand due to the combined failures of the enemy and combined successes of my allies.
killonsight95 wrote:Have you ever heard that the insurgent main can re-arm the CE kit? hmmm guess not. Thats why it is never taken out.
If you defend the engineer as he clears the minefield, then you have no problems. If the kit doesn't have C4, even if you somehow lose it to the enemy, you have until they reach a large ammo supply to get it back. After all that, even if they get the C4 and start rigging up cars and bikes, you can just kill the vehicles, most of which don't respawn. It's never taken out because it requires, what is in today's playing environment, a simply unreachable amount of player competency to use safely.
killonsight95 wrote:have you ever heard of a tank kill a cahce irl?
Lemme take a quick second and point out that caches as they exist in PR aren't how these things work in real life. It's an acceptable break from reality to circumvent limitations inherent in using a computer simulation to emulate a real life style of conflict. In the same manner that Hideouts don't actually cause insurgents to magically appear, a weapons cache is a metaphor for a large supply of explosives, ammunition, fuel, and other extremely flammable things required to fight a war. If I were to introduce a rapid spike in heat and pressure into that enclosed room, the chances are very good that I'd set something off, inducing a chain reaction that would destroy most if not all of the usable weapons or supplies in that room.
killonsight95 wrote:
no i'm talking about the tatic where a squad will send one person into the insurgent mas pick up and insurgent kit and sneek their way in spec ops style which is not what PR is aiming for.
Who are you to interpret dev intentions? Why is my interpretation, that because the current style of play is highly conducive to extreme small unit tactics in Insurgency any less valid than your opposing viewpoint? It is fair to argue that because the game settings are the way they are with no plans to revamp or change them significantly over some 3-4 versions of the mod, the gamemode is clearly working as intended as a concept, leaving only minor details left to be worked out.
killonsight95 wrote:
In PR the mob is not illusive at all like you said they search for trouble.
I would like you to read that again. I posited that as a
concept , insurgents should be tiptoeing around backallys and side streets, massing for a quick attack and withdrawing into the city, not attacking what should be a force with immeasurably superior firepower.
killonsight95 wrote:
So your saying here that sending two guys in to kill a weapons cache is done irl? could you find me at least 3 sources where this is done by none special forces.
Three sources? Are you afraid I might find one to invalidate your argument? Rest assured, it hasn't happened, and I concede that. If the weapons cache is big enough to be supplying a major insurgent cell, then it's big enough to call for interest from assets that are either not represented by choice, air power, or not represented by lack of capability larger vehicle numbers than a solitary tank, and a great deal more infantry than can be represented in PR. When I ninja caches, I'm making the most I can out of an extremely limited scope of engagement using assets that bear little resemblance to their real life counterparts outside of cosmetics.
I also have serious doubts that the insurgents would be dumb enough to put all their eggs into one tremendously explosive and tempting basket, as they do in PR. Even if they did, I'm sure they'd have better defended locations to chose from, not just trusting allah to hurl them down from outer space into the first floor of the only cover within 400 meters.
killonsight95 wrote:
Often insurgents don't work in a team anyway.
This is not the DEVs fault. This is player unwillingness to work together to win.
This is not behavior that can be coded out without seriously harming the mod as a whole for the people who are willing to be reasonable.
>:C
killonsight95 wrote:
we're not asking for equal teams we're asking for the insurgent team to have more of a chance and be a bit mroe of a realistic gamemode
Insurgency is currently more balanced than it has ever been, sans the first real implementation. .917 is the first version I've seen with a nearly equitable win rate. The first version was balanced towards insurgents, the pendulum then swung towards bluefor, etc. I can take the same group of 32 players and put them on either team, and they have an equal chance of winning provided they play their factions strength. Nowhere is this more evident than on TG, in which rounds utilizing Iron Tide convoys win on parity with teams utilizing hidden ambushers, lighting raids on FOBs, and great care and coordination on the use of Dumpy vs armor.
killonsight95 wrote:
your kidding right? theres lots more to do with it such as the fact its an insurgency not a supported army with high level training and enough ammo to drown a small island, the Insurgency is the things you said yes but how could you promote these roles? with points... whats the point when you loose them after killing one civi by accident or some weird event. Even with points how would you incorperate these points then?
Sorry, I keep confusing people, perhaps it's because I make my points in longer paragraph form.
As a concept, from my point of view:
Insurgency Mode: A version of the current struggle in the War on Terror. Game objectives are to destroy caches maintained by an insurgent force.
The Insurgents: By and large,
not tremendously literate, well trained, or well equipped. They are indigenous to the conflicted region, and enjoy a numerical superiority in direct combat. They enjoy a homefield advantage in almost every aspect of combat.
High numbers, Low tech.
The Coalition: A very well trained and equipped force, occupying a peacekeeping role in the country in which conflict is occurring. They are there mainly as a political gesture to ensure stability as the country is rebuilt following an invasion.
Low numbers, High tech.
I believe the roles could be clarified with some simplification. We need a firm, concise, unified clarification on Collaborators/Civilians. If they are Civilians, why are they aiding and abetting in combat? If they are Collaborators willing to participate in direct combat, how can there be any ambiguity to their actions?
I fully understand why they exist, I just question that they serve any purpose in PR.
As for points? I don't really want to go into that. They serve no purpose right now, but there are no better replacements possible within the BF2 engine. A more detailed stat screen that allows you to compare yourself based on very specific criteria would be better.
"FOBs Shoveled, Vehicles Disabled, Maximum Continuous Flight Time, Total Transports" etc. Let people define their own measures of success within the system of capturing flags or destroying caches, don't reduce it down to an arbitrary "teamwork" score or "points" value. Tracking Ping and Deaths at all time should be the only two constants.