Page 1 of 1
Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 06:44
by StandardSmurf
It really sucks when playing INS how you always get unknown spawners. Excuses I hear are that the player is going to stay in the cache room and defend it. The problem with this is that OTHER players will spawn on the unknown because they see you there, and wander off. I was hoping to see what you guys think about this issue. I would love to see servers implement rules against unk spawning. There was a mod that changed INS so that you had 4 knowns only per map. This was better, but I'd rather see it stay at 7 knowns. Is anyone else really sick of doing the right thing by not spawning on unks, and seeing people just spawn on them anyway cause they are "special"? And to the DEVs, why are there unknowns in the first place ? Was it your intent that players spawn on these unknowns ?
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 07:12
by smiley
Sometimes unknowns need defending, it's as simple as that. It just takes a small amount of thought and communication between SLs to decide that. However there are so many brain dead, immature, selfish children playing PR these days that a small amount of thought and communication is a step up the evolutionary ladder for them.
It's like most things in life in that there's lots of grey areas to consider and for me personally a no spawning on unknowns rule doesn't work and doesn't make sense apart from the obvious.
One of many reasons why I believe insurgency is a flawed game mode.
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 07:37
by AnA10Warthog
I thought it was a bannable offense to do so. As such, I do not do so.
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 07:54
by PLODDITHANLEY
If it's someone with a brain who carefully sneaks out or who is of the mind set to quietly watch for lucky or cheating blufor players fair enough - I even think on my next ins round I'll get a techy and cruise around the general area.
I've however seen people getting cache kits (PKM or RPG) and use them from unknowns or as bad whole blobs spawning there.
When I admined I would be very watchful on unknown spammers and if they were being silly I would use the kill command.
But yes I agree that unknowns server very little useful purpose on your average pub server and are more of a liability than a chance to build a triangle of hideouts
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 12:12
by Pvt.LHeureux
Spawning on unknowns is fine if you :
- Stay in the building and watch the entrance
- Find a good spot to watch the entrance from further away
- Defend it against ghosters
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 18:20
by IWI-GALIL.556FA
Pvt.LHeureux wrote:Spawning on unknowns is fine if you :
- Stay in the building and watch the entrance
- Find a good spot to watch the entrance from further away
- Defend it against ghosters
Hard to defend from ghosters seeing as how they only have to look at their maps to know the unknown location. You can always stop them from actually destroying it but by that time their whole team knows where it is. Damn ghosters!!!
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 19:39
by Phoenixo_Idaho
Pvt.LHeureux wrote:Spawning on unknowns is fine if you :
[...]
- Defend it against ghosters
it's also interesting to spawn on unknonws cache, AS A COMMANDER, to build hideouts quietly

Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 20:33
by CR8Z
The unknowns are nice, because it's nice to know where new caches will be so you can, you know, defend them.
I don't know if you guys have ever played blufor, but you can actually go into any building and find a cache, known or unknown. If nobody is there to defend it, they just blow it up.
Another tactic is to set up many defensive positions, which may give the indication that a cache is nearby, when in reality, it is not. In this way, you can make blufor give up lives for an UN-unknown.
Perhaps all insurgents should just hide in a hole or something and make the map look deserted and blufor will just go home.
Re: Unknown Spawners
Posted: 2013-06-24 21:07
by Spec
Not to shut you up or anything, but perhaps wait for the next version with this discussion, maybe things'll have changed. As it is, it's already been discussed enough.