C4 vs caches

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

Do you honestly think this adds to the convo? Anyone with the ability to think in a logical manner would realize wallhacking/ghosting/no-clip glitching or w.e, is something the admins have to watch for much like aim-botting. Where in my statement do I encourage you to cheat? No I am simply implying that all this whining and bickering serves little purpose other then post padding.

i was really just making fun of your "deal with it its in the game n00bs" attitude.

please, tell us how voiding the advantage of terrain and cover is good for ins balance.

[Murphy]

Please cite where I have stated that. I didn't, and in fact I do believe I went to point out that the fact that the INS allow the Blufor to run up and plant that C4 pretty much trumps most of the points brought up. On balanced INS maps (looking at Archer and Karbala as prime examples of bad balance), the insurgents are given the freedom of movement and the opportunity to pick where the fighting will happen. Unfortunately 90% of the time that advantage is given up because the INS team on a public server plays like a bunch of headless chicken and trying to coordinate them is like herding cats. I think a lot of you players would just prefer INS maps to be a nearly impenetrable fortress with a cache in the middle, that doesn't make the game balanced it just caters to players who refuse to adhere to ingame logic (which is often counter-intuitive to reality).

Please continue to make fun of my "l2p attitude", I can only hope more people stop and ponder on the merits of thinking before you act.

[illidur]

Please cite where I have stated that. I didn't, and in fact I do believe I went to point out that the fact that the INS allow the Blufor to run up and plant that C4 pretty much trumps most of the points brought up. On balanced INS maps (looking at Archer and Karbala as prime examples of bad balance), the insurgents are given the freedom of movement and the opportunity to pick where the fighting will happen. Unfortunately 90% of the time that advantage is given up because the INS team on a public server plays like a bunch of headless chicken and trying to coordinate them is like herding cats. I think a lot of you players would just prefer INS maps to be a nearly impenetrable fortress with a cache in the middle, that doesn't make the game balanced it just caters to players who refuse to adhere to ingame logic (which is often counter-intuitive to reality).

Please continue to make fun of my "l2p attitude", I can only hope more people stop and ponder on the merits of thinking before you act.

they dont need to "run up", they can drive up, drive by (back of transport hmv), fly by or have your mom drop off the c4 to the cache building. its a form of solo ninja tactic that ruins a "teamwork" game.

but its funny because at its worst is when its used with teamwork. like if an apc and hmgs suppressing a cache building across a wide opening. the guy can literally walk up and drop it without getting killed. if the enemy is smart and had an ied waiting for a beep, well go back, get the kit and press button. northeast cache location on kokan is a perfect example.

i think insurgents can only choose where the action takes place to a small degree. the marker kinda chooses that.

in game logic says it needs a nerf.

[Murphy]

The scenario you outlined still has blufor destroying the cache thanks to their support. Either way if there is an HMG/APC/Infantry locking down the area keeping insurgents from moving the ins have already lost, you are using a lost cause as the example to nerf C4 and there are many other posters who choose the same style of situation. The C4 radius could be reduced, sure I wouldn't mind a tweak to keep it only being effective when placed within say 5-10 meters of the cache.

The reality of the situation is that explosives would/could be used to destroy the compound walls and create an entrance for the bluguys to finish the job lickity split, but thanks to engine limitations it simply destroys the cache with the assumption that the entire building was utterly demolished (even though bf2 doesn't support enough destruction to actually render the building as a wreck).

Again you cite the fact that it is exploitable in a vehicle borne manner, and this is more the fault of the vehicle mechanics then the C4. Making it so C4 cannot stick to the materials used for vehicles would be a more delicate way of addressing the issue as opposed to getting rid of blufors "ace in the hole". You guys have me arguing against the faction I prefer to play as INS simply because you want an easier time defending, but with the DBMod changes I see INS winning games without losing a cache quite often. This just goes to prove that C4 is not as big a game breaker as you want me to believe.

[Tit4Tat]

waaaaay to much to read, even on this page.


C4 on caches ain't that big of a problem IMO. I think the maps are more of a problem rather than C4's....simples

[KiloJules]

^

[Murphy]

The term "maps" is a little general, I do believe the maps are quite well done overall. The real issue is with cache placement within the maps, there are a large number that are either way to exposed (In a Northern field on Dragonfly) or way to hard to get to (Pick a cave in Lashkar). This does bare some of the fault for one team or another have a more difficult time, but it isn't entirely relevant to the topic and would also probably require more work then adjusting the properties of C4.

[Tit4Tat]

This does bare some of the fault for one team or another have a more difficult time, but it isn't entirely relevant to the topic and would also probably require more work then adjusting the properties of C4.

Yes, more teamwork.



Some maps favour C4 which requires top notch teamwork from ins/tali side, some maps favour ins/talis which requires teamwork/coordination from bufor.



If you could frisbee throw C4 from 20-40 meters than yes it is overpowered, but you have to get pretty close to a compound and survive to get a result. Now i don't know about all you lot, but i've been on ins/tali side on different maps when nearly a whole team is defending, even though we had APC, AR, Grenadier fire they still lost so many tickets going for that 1 cache, whether it was blown up by C4 or not the point still stands that with good teamwork to c4 or not to c4 isn't that big of a game changer.....IMO.

[illidur]

The scenario you outlined still has blufor destroying the cache thanks to their support. Either way if there is an HMG/APC/Infantry locking down the area keeping insurgents from moving the ins have already lost, you are using a lost cause as the example to nerf C4 and there are many other posters who choose the same style of situation. The C4 radius could be reduced, sure I wouldn't mind a tweak to keep it only being effective when placed within say 5-10 meters of the cache.

because an apc is watching a cache building from the middle of a giant field the cache should be toast? the apc is pretty much untouchable, it covers all methods of defending the outside of the target building. c4 makes defending the cache more than just the cache, you have to defend the whole area/thing its in.

The reality of the situation is that explosives would/could be used to destroy the compound walls and create an entrance for the bluguys to finish the job lickity split, but thanks to engine limitations it simply destroys the cache with the assumption that the entire building was utterly demolished (even though bf2 doesn't support enough destruction to actually render the building as a wreck).

reality? well in that case mortars and just about everything in the game would tear down walls, kill ppl inside and destroy this mode's objective. might as well make it so apc rounds do splash damage and blow up the cache directly then. who needs c4 when one apc supporting means the cache is doomed.

anyways more realistically c4 used to destroy a weapon cache would be done by securing the cache first.

[FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON]

The term "maps" is a little general, I do believe the maps are quite well done overall. The real issue is with cache placement within the maps, there are a large number that are either way to exposed (In a Northern field on Dragonfly) or way to hard to get to (Pick a cave in Lashkar). This does bare some of the fault for one team or another have a more difficult time, but it isn't entirely relevant to the topic and would also probably require more work then adjusting the properties of C4.

i will agree with you here, on cave caches you are pretty much required to use c4 to get past a team that is even semi competent.

on all maps with armor, any cache 10m from the desert/open ground is screwed. this means that on some maps as much as 80% of the caches can be taken out from outside the compounds/cities. maybe if c4 was only allowed on maps with impenetrable cave caches it could be balanced? because you are correct it is necessary on some maps, but on others it just sucks any bit of balance out of the map.

[Murphy]

because an apc is watching a cache building from the middle of a giant field the cache should be toast? the apc is pretty much untouchable, it covers all methods of defending the outside of the target building.

Yes exactly that - If an APC/IFV can sit there unopposed the more time that passes the more assured blufor success becomes. If you believe an APC is untouchable I'd like to introduce you to my friends the RPG and SPG, not to mention mines IEDs and bomb cars. The INS have plenty of ways to take armor down so quit complaining and start rethinking your strategy.

reality? well in that case mortars and just about everything in the game would tear down walls, kill ppl inside and destroy this mode's objective. might as well make it so apc rounds do splash damage and blow up the cache directly then. who needs c4 when one apc supporting means the cache is doomed.

That was exactly my point. If there was a compound/area that offers too much resistance the blufor guys have so many tools to tackle the situation from so many angles, in game we are severely limited in the actual effectiveness of support. C4 is a neat little way of trying to give blufor at least one of those many "over-powered" real life tools they often have on call. Also I'm not sure if you have ever been in an APC on INS mode but APC rounds do indeed do splash damage and I have easily destroyed plenty of caches by splashing the room enough.

anyways more realistically c4 used to destroy a weapon cache would be done by securing the cache first.

Unless of course there was too much resistance, which is the whole point of offering them C4 as a way to simulate a not so gentle approach. There is a documentary about "Bomb Alley" in which explosives are used to cut a path straight through the town to avoid any possible ambush points, so we can at least say the option is on the table.

One point I'd like to make is Archer is a horribly unbalanced man for INS and I would like to exclude that map from the discussion as it is obviously made to give us Canadians that warm fuzzy feeling inside.

[Heavy Death]

Regarding the vehicles... maybe the option to shoot out of the helis could be removed. Its pretty unneeded as it doesnt allow much freedom anyway. If you take on a cache with a hmmv, it takes quite some bad play on the INS side to let you through, get out, plant the C4 and drive away. Maybe the C4 planting time could be increased for a second or two. Then again, chopper isnt a small target but its inevitably more effective if the pilot and c4 dropper have the required skill and knowledge to drop mid flight.

[illidur]

Yes exactly that - If an APC/IFV can sit there unopposed the more time that passes the more assured blufor success becomes. If you believe an APC is untouchable I'd like to introduce you to my friends the RPG and SPG, not to mention mines IEDs and bomb cars. The INS have plenty of ways to take armor down so quit complaining and start rethinking your strategy.

so because the enemy can cover a side of the cache building the enemy should be doomed? that makes for terrible gameplay. more often than not a good apc will not die in huge open areas. plus he only has to cover that building for a very short time. if apcs were so easily defeated then i'm sure people would either be complaining here, or not using them.

If there was a compound/area that offers too much resistance the blufor guys have so many tools to tackle the situation from so many angles, in game we are severely limited in the actual effectiveness of support. C4 is a neat little way of trying to give blufor at least one of those many "over-powered" real life tools they often have on call. Also I'm not sure if you have ever been in an APC on INS mode but APC rounds do indeed do splash damage and I have easily destroyed plenty of caches by splashing the room enough.

so you feel blufor is too hard without c4???? "if its hard then we should use it" is your stance?
well thats not how most people play "if it works the best lets use it" is their mindset. dont know if you have ever played insurgency before but there are alot of ways to destroy a cache. blufor do not need c4 to do it.

Unless of course there was too much resistance, which is the whole point of offering them C4 as a way to simulate a not so gentle approach. There is a documentary about "Bomb Alley" in which explosives are used to cut a path straight through the town to avoid any possible ambush points, so we can at least say the option is on the table.

this is a game, there should always be "resistance" but people would use it even if there wasn't. because its a game. i'm glad you like to roleplay but some people have no restraint.

[Murphy]

Illidur you obviously know jack about me so please stop assuming. I much prefer to play insurgents when i play INS, I'm also not a milsim guy who plays games to be immersed, it's not my cup of tea. Next time keep your dumb comments to yourself.

I do believe you are starting to understand how armor support works. If a piece of armor is allowed overwatch on the cache compound from whatever range, in any position at all the longer it is allowed to focus on the cache area the easier it becomes. This is not a place to argue about APCs and proper cover while advancing, if you have an issue with how this part of the game plays out C4 is not where you should point the finger.

Two C4 kits out in the world on a full server, how does that equate to a huge scandal. You yourself said there are plenty of ways to destroy a cache, how about HAT kits, mortars, Kiowa spam, AA rockets, RKG spam, RPGs. These are things that should not destroy a cache so easily, but an explosive device should render the cache obsolete.

You flimsy arguments against C4 kits paint it to be a weapon that every other soldier has and every single squad jumps for and spams the cache building every time. You seem to assume insurgent teams are full of morons (probably basing if off your personal experiences with INS teams) and they should be allowed to let blufor park a Tank/APC right down the street from the cache. And they should be allowed to let one or two guys get to the cache without having them blow it up instantly, otherwise that would be cheap.

I grow wary of trying to drive a simple fact across, so if you're too stubborn to grasp it that is your own problem.

If the Insurgent team allows BluFor forces to get close enough to the cache that a C4 can be effective they deserve to lose the cache for not defending properly. There is no situation or excuse to remove the kit from the game based off of a few people who believe that the INS teams advantage of infinite respawns is not enough despite having more then enough anti-vehicle and anti-infantry tools to handle everything thrown at them. The issues with C4 and vehicles does need to be dealt with, but short of that the kit is a great part of INS mode and helps ensure the insurgents don't get sloppy and let too many ninjas by.

[=HCM= Shwedor]

Illidur you obviously know jack about me so please stop assuming. I much prefer to play insurgents when i play INS, I'm also not a milsim guy who plays games to be immersed, it's not my cup of tea. Next time keep your dumb comments to yourself.

I do believe you are starting to understand how armor support works. If a piece of armor is allowed overwatch on the cache compound from whatever range, in any position at all the longer it is allowed to focus on the cache area the easier it becomes. This is not a place to argue about APCs and proper cover while advancing, if you have an issue with how this part of the game plays out C4 is not where you should point the finger.

Two C4 kits out in the world on a full server, how does that equate to a huge scandal. You yourself said there are plenty of ways to destroy a cache, how about HAT kits, mortars, Kiowa spam, AA rockets, RKG spam, RPGs. These are things that should not destroy a cache so easily, but an explosive device should render the cache obsolete.

You flimsy arguments against C4 kits paint it to be a weapon that every other soldier has and every single squad jumps for and spams the cache building every time. You seem to assume insurgent teams are full of morons (probably basing if off your personal experiences with INS teams) and they should be allowed to let blufor park a Tank/APC right down the street from the cache. And they should be allowed to let one or two guys get to the cache without having them blow it up instantly, otherwise that would be cheap.

I grow wary of trying to drive a simple fact across, so if you're too stubborn to grasp it that is your own problem.

If the Insurgent team allows BluFor forces to get close enough to the cache that a C4 can be effective they deserve to lose the cache for not defending properly. There is no situation or excuse to remove the kit from the game based off of a few people who believe that the INS teams advantage of infinite respawns is not enough despite having more then enough anti-vehicle and anti-infantry tools to handle everything thrown at them. The issues with C4 and vehicles does need to be dealt with, but short of that the kit is a great part of INS mode and helps ensure the insurgents don't get sloppy and let too many ninjas by.

"You seem to assume insurgent teams are full of morons.."

PR is full of morons, why do you think people keep coming up with all these rules? They are too dumb to adapt, so they simply ban it. PR players used to be much better, but in the past couple of years the IQ level has significantly dropped. Its like roadkilling, people don't understand the concept of standing near cover and NOT walking in the middle of a huge field, so they ban it. Literally, in a short time the rules will be so heavy that PR will be nothing but walking in only straight lines at all times, directly to only known caches, using only rifles.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

Any cache filled compound that is open to more than 100m can be covered by blufors superior long range weaponry thus with one squad the engy can come and place his C4 easily. Letting Ninja's by isn't really Kokan - LAV firing with an AR covering plus a few scopes is enough to lock down completely one side of a compound.

Kokan
Ramiel OUTSKIRTS
Karbala Desert facing areas
A few in Fallujah
A few in Al Basrah.

This thread seems to me to say more don't want it then do.

Other choices - make caches c4 proof
Remove all caches from outer damage area from C4
Give ins HAT and scoped AR - (joke)
I agree shooting out of helicopters is pointless so why not remove that and the c4 drop issue would be gone.

We need a vote.

We've seen in this thread both sides of the argument the milsim gang, the use everything possible in game to win, the middle of the road guys.

[risegold8929]

My opinion on the matter is: C4 is there to be used, so BlueFor should be able to use it.
The thing I disagree with is the manner in which many people use it. "LOLZ charge teh compound and place on random wall and hope to kill cache!!" which is mainly due to the quite large radius in which C4 can kill a cache.

My only suggestion would be to make the blast radius for killing caches smaller, in an attempt to limit zerg rushers and make C4 a tool, that when combined with correct intelligence from team members, it can be devastating, but without teamwork it becomes obsolete.

[illidur]

Illidur you obviously know jack about me so please stop assuming. I much prefer to play insurgents when i play INS, I'm also not a milsim guy who plays games to be immersed, it's not my cup of tea. Next time keep your dumb comments to yourself.

well you did say it should be kept ingame for simulation purposes.
you said "Unless of course there was too much resistance, which is the whole point of offering them C4 as a way to simulate a not so gentle approach."

I do believe you are starting to understand how armor support works.

thanks but i've been playing pr for years so i already know how it works. shouldn't assume eh? blufor have long range weaponry that defeats opfor's, and with an apc being one of the options of doing that you are wrong. pretty obvious outcome when you can't draw them in cqc as insurgents (yet they can c4 through walls).

Two C4 kits out in the world on a full server, how does that equate to a huge scandal. You yourself said there are plenty of ways to destroy a cache, how about HAT kits, mortars, Kiowa spam, AA rockets, RKG spam, RPGs. These are things that should not destroy a cache so easily, but an explosive device should render the cache obsolete.

or i just say that c4 is OP compared to the other weapons. everything got the nerf yet c4's blast and strength against the cache remains. not gonna get into what would destroy a cache IRL.

You flimsy arguments against C4 kits paint it to be a weapon that every other soldier has and every single squad jumps for and spams the cache building every time. You seem to assume insurgent teams are full of morons (probably basing if off your personal experiences with INS teams) and they should be allowed to let blufor park a Tank/APC right down the street from the cache. And they should be allowed to let one or two guys get to the cache without having them blow it up instantly, otherwise that would be cheap.

i dont think blufor should be able to ninja. with c4 i can complete the mission objective by myself against random people. its obviously not a guaranteed thing, its situational and when it happens its retarded. how many blocks of c4 can i try compared to 7 caches?

There is no situation or excuse to remove the kit from the game

nope, i said nerf.

[MaxBooZe]

Funfact: 9/10 caches described as being in the open and being covered by an LAV, can actually be destroyed by the LAV or a HAT kit from the same position. Resulting in an EVEN SMALLER chance of BLUFOR casualties and further imbalancing the game. But certainly that isn't viewed as a problem, because the APC is crewed by 2 people and a HAT requires 2 people, therefor you must use teamwork to take down a cache. The HAT can kill a cache instantly with a direct or near (3/4m) impact to the cache.

If anything C4 makes people take action and gets people to go into the city. If the insurgents are compotent enough they don't sit in the building and defend it from the inside. I think most people don't see the C4 as a problem, it's the part where you can fly or drive up to the cache with such ease that is the problem.
Which I can agree with, dropping C4 from a heli could make it very easy. This however is not a problem per se related to the current condition of C4 or the way in which it works. This simply means the insurgents aren't using their given advantages of mobility and portable firepower.
A good point is made by Ploddit, one way to solve atleast one aspect is to disallow to shoot from helicopters as it is with the current Lynx.

[Tit4Tat]

i'm sure it takes 2 HAT shots now to kill a cache, don't quote me.