Insurgency completely ruined

[Nebsif]

@ Leeu:
Most of the time I see insurgents runing around w/o much teamwork, its rare to see 2 normal voip squads with it's members sticking together compared to like atleast 2 voip squads and some vehicle squads on blufor, but u describe it as if there's more teamwork on INS side.
Agree with u about limited kits and fail-scopes.

In 087 BLUFOR needed like 80% teamwork to win compared to like 15% on ins side, at 1st it made me stop looking for caches and just go hunt insurgents (preferably with their own kits) and then I stopped playing ins at all, now however its once again interesting, even korengal is winnable.
And no, im not a blufor fanboy, I play on INS side more than I play on blufor, the only map i'd really wanna play as blufor would be korengal and gaza, korengal for the challenge, gaza for an obvious reason

[clueless_noob]

Here is my story. I can't write walls of text even in Finnish, but I'll try to say something meaningful.

I'm one of those religious insurgency players like Leeu and nex911 - or used to be before 0.9. I played as an insurgent several hours a day almost every day of the week for months and virtually never gave up because of frustration, but after .9 I've hit Alt-F4 midgame more often than in the whole 0.6 to 0.87 era combined.

From my point of view, an attempt to rectify seemingly insurgent favoring game mode and baseraping occuring on some maps, led to over-correction of the whole game. The biggest of these corrections was new cache rule, but the other changes were significant too: new main bases, ridiculously large doom of deaths, reduced and destroyable insurgent spawn points, nerfed insurgent weapons, coalition's faster medic and reduced ticket loss on coalition's destroyed assets. Like badmojo420 wrote earlier, new cache rule have lead to situation where coalition can waste 57 tickets for every single cache and still win the round. When this is combined with all the other changes mentioned above, the result is coalition can and will win, often with three-digit number of tickets to spare.

One of the aspects that made playing as an insurgent so fun was, indeed, winning. Winning, when all the odds were telling just the opposite: bad weapons, bad transport and bad health care (civi in .87, anyone?). On the other hand, playing on coalition side was equally fun because all of the great equipment. Losing wasn't so big deal as long as it wasn't caused by asshats wasting assets. Coalition fought hard, insurgents fought back even harder and won. GG everyone!

Nowdays, all the odds are still against insurgent's victory, but sadly this time the odds are proven correct. You fight against overwhelming firepower and armor with crappy weapons - and you lose. I'm sorry, but I fail to find anything fun in that.

[clueless_noob]

Originally Posted by Leeu

annoying problem of players telling the other team where exactly the caches are through using VOIP/multiple accounts.

Ghosting do happen, but not necessarily so openly. I think typical ghoster is usually a fresh player joining a server, who ends up on insurgent side and looks at the map before switching to coalition side for the rest of the round. He then either shares his knowledge with his squad or exploits it by himself. After a while an another player joins the server and does exactly the same. Rinse and repeat.

So it's not couple of guys sharing all the cache locations during the whole round. It's a series of individual one-time incidents by group of different people.

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by Nebsif

Most of the time I see insurgents runing around w/o much teamwork, its rare to see 2 normal voip squads with it's members sticking together compared to like atleast 2 voip squads and some vehicle squads on blufor, but u describe it as if there's more teamwork on INS side.

The way i've seen it play out, there is WAY more teamwork on the insurgent side of things. But the squad-work isn't at the same level as the blufor. But, it seems this is out of need, rather then the insurgents not wanting to stick together.

I find the majority of the squads on the insurgent side are more like 'radio channels' where people can communicate over voip. Because, when it comes to a fellow insurgent needing help, medical attention, ammo, ride, etc. It doesn't matter if they're blue or green. I've even played some amazing rounds as insurgent where the only time I joined a squad was to verbally rejoice with a fellow insurgent after a good ambush.

And then we have the total opposite on the Blufor side. Squads relying on each and every squad member to keep the strength of the squad, staying together to survive, obeying your SL like he's god. Because that is what is needed for the most part on the blufor side of things. One down sides of this is that the blufor gets too focused on just their own squad and the inter-squad teamwork suffers greatly. This can be seen almost every day when medics ignore casualties not in their own squad, vehicles ignoring calls for ammo, transport, etc. And the worst, squads assaulting different caches.

Of course this isn't always the case for either, you can have lonewolfs on blufor and dictator like SL's on insurgents. But neither work very well from my expirence. It never fails that a large group of armed insurgents moving together will only result in more dead bodies once they are seen.

[Proceed]

I absolutly agree with clueless noob.
When i started playing one and a half years ago I never wanted to be insurgent, and tried to teamswitch every time, but then I liked the idea of luring the enemy into traps and it was fun, awaiting enemy armor to pass your IEDs. Now this is not an issue anymore, because IEDs are crap. Gameplay is atm a little ruined, IEDs are the main explosives used in Iraq, causing the most kills, and for sure they dont use them mainly for infantry.

[badmojo420]

The devs screwed up with respect to the IED. But not in the way everyone is whining about.

They screwed up with the distribution of the new and improved artillery shell IED. It's not on all maps, and should be increased in numbers on some. And the biggest problem is that Hamas and Taliban have no access to it.

They've already acknowledged this screw up, and I'm guessing it will be fixed in next patch.

So please can we stop crying that the IED should kill armor, and blah blah blah.

Try the new arty IED, stand WAY back, and be sure to keep some tissues handy for when you jizz in your pants over it's awesomeness.

[Proceed]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

The devs screwed up with respect to the IED. But not in the way everyone is whining about.

They screwed up with the distribution of the new and improved artillery shell IED. It's not on all maps, and should be increased in numbers on some. And the biggest problem is that Hamas and Taliban have no access to it.

They've already acknowledged this screw up, and I'm guessing it will be fixed in next patch.

So please can we stop crying that the IED should kill armor, and blah blah blah.

Try the new arty IED, stand WAY back, and be sure to keep some tissues handy for when you jizz in your pants over it's awesomeness.

Hey,
if there is a change planned of the arty IED kit Im happy with it, but please name your source and the concrete changings.


Cheers Proceed

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Jaymz

The artillery IED does need to be made more available. We kind of made them all realistic to appearance without redoing the kit loadouts (Artillery IED will be far more common in the future).

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ninja2dan

That's a good update note. From what I'd seen before, the arty version was an extremely limited pick-up kit on the Insurgent maps, and was not being used often enough to really be effective. I'm looking forward to seeing more on the battlefield, something to keep drivers on their toes

From the IED Feedback thread.

Small IED is for INF, Arty IED is for everything else. Just think of this version as a time where the INS couldn't get their hands on enough artillery shells for everyone. Use the proximity IEDs (mines) and wait for the next update.

[Tahanatos]

First of all lets realize what an IED is:
It is an Improvised Explosive Device
The Keyword here is IMPROVISED

You can not tell what kind of damage a normal IED does because there are no "normal" IEDs and as the conflict in the middle east continues the variety in IEDs used groves.

To name the two most important examples (the topic is infact a lot more complicated):
1. Mortar ammunition, Mines or Bombs burried under ground
They can damage or take out entire vehicles
I have met soldiers who survived such explosions only because it was blown up one meter in front of their vehicle instead of directly beneath them. Therefore lets say a direct hit is needed

2.Smaller Peaces of ammunition to injure infantry
Like grenates for example or other explosive devices the size of the PR IED.
Do little or no damage to armoured Vehicles. often used as secondary IEDs to hit the people who come to rescue the injured from the first IED or walking patrols.

A grenate or a little bag of explosives like the standart IEDs in PR are not gonna take out an APV APC or even a Tank. IEDs used in the real conflicts are more like the ones on the back of the Big Red and are beeing burried under ground, but u cant simulate that in PR so pls stop trying to tell the DEVs how a real IED should be

[Proceed]

I am saying that most casualties on US side are caused by IEDs, that is a fact.
That they can vary in size and power is true, but noone would make a weak IED, except in special circumstances, so there is no need in such a smartypants answer especially because I stated that I'm okay with it, if it's gonna be changed.


Cheers Proceed