Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

    Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
    One major change should be noted: Insurgents may no longer attack the enemy main. No more bomb cars, no more ambushing the exits, no more mortars on the main. Mains in Insurgency are to be treated exactly as they are in AAS.

    Why?

    It's not because of realism. We understand that insurgent forces do attack BluFor encampments and forward operating bases.

    This change was made in consideration of game play. The game is far more fun when both sides focus on their objectives instead of hunting for the easy kills or being subjected to constant attacks in their main bases. Insurgent forces should concentrate on protecting their caches and the BluFor should be allowed to concentrate on eliminating the caches. The playing field for the insurgent factions and the BluFor factions has been leveled considerably, and as such, we feel it is no longer necessary to allow insurgents to attack what would normally be a heavily defended base.
    I did not want to post this as a reply in the "Getting TG Back on Track" thread for fear that it might take away from the right and noble intention of the PR Admin team. I am curious as to the feelings of the community considering the rule change which will now prohibit Insurgent attacks on BluFor bases in Insurgency game play.

    I believe that certain maps (Korengal & Fallujah in particular) have been designed so that the BluFor base is a valid target for Insurgent attacks. While other maps (Ramiel, Karbala) are clearly designed to keep insurgents a safe distance away. I am concerned that prohibiting main base attacks on maps where the base has, until now, been accessible, may affect game balance on these maps.

    While the admins have given their reasoning for the change, and I agree with it, up to a point; it is my hope that a change as important as this one deserves a healthy public discussion.

  • #2
    Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

    It's an intresting point and I would also agree that with the insurgents having an outright height advantage over the US on Korengal that perhaps the rule should be revised for this style of map. Though ultimately it is at the disgression of the admins.
    Though essentially a few points to note;

    1) High ground for insurgents on Korengal overlooking US main
    2) US main being in the center of the map on a busy T-junction road network.
    3) Insurgents moving about outside the main would be subject to US fire when ontop of the mountains // moving about around the main for cache defence.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

      I really think it is against realism this rule, as insurgents need to have the ability to be on the offensive and to defend. Attacking a US main is done in real life with bomb cars, mortars, etc and should NOT be stopped. The whole idea of having a map in a hostile area is to be able to protect your blufor base and do the tasks needed to secure the area, sometimes you have to choose one or the other. It is unfortunate that this rule was created.

      One other item of note: I noticed on Lashkar a couple of nights ago (I had a business trip and didn't have time to write the admins) was that a player joined the OpFor side, actually shot at one of my squadmates and then stood still for about 1.5 minutes, I thought this was interesting, he then committed suicide and ended up on the BluFor side. That round on Lashkar (after this happened) we had two caches that got blown up and were NOT marked (they were a purple banner on our side). The other funny thing was all of the OpFor team was on the East side of the river and both caches were on the West side. I have seen more and more unmarked caches going down on this map, now I believe there is UAV and the commander can sometimes figure out where a cache may be located but not always. I would suggest team switching during one of these maps is NOT right and should really NOT be tolerated unless there is a specific reason for it.
      sigpic

      OLD GUYS RULE!!!!

      Humor is something that thrives between man's aspirations and his limitations. There is more logic in humor than in anything else. Because, you see, humor is truth. Victor Borge


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

        I agree with this rule and have waited for it for a long time. One of the reasons for baserape not being allowed in AAS is that there aren't enough people available for in the field fighting and base defence so i never understood why it was acceptable on insurgency when you need as many people in the field cache hunting. Hopefully this rule won't catch people off gaurd but i think it will work nicely.
        |TG-69th|chrisweb89


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

          I agree with the change as well. I hate seeing a squad defend the base as Blufor, it drains valuable resources that could be used to fight the insurgents. I also think it won't be much of a problem on maps such as Korrengal, because the DoD is so big anyway and with the addition of all the trees nothing short of a sniper can engage the US main.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

            I think we should play under the new rule and experience the potential 'balance issue' rather than speculate it's effect of gameplay.
            It could be a great change. And I know it makes me more excited to play maps like gaza, and korengal where BluFor can lose 20-40 tickets from a single mortar attack if assets are unmanned.

            The 189th Infantry Brigade: Taking the 'the' out of psychotherapist since 2010.

            XFire: mrthomasking

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

              Here's to hoping the rule gets more insurgents where they belong: At the cache, putting up a fight.

              As much as I loved the 'realism' of Taliban/Insurgents being able to attack, they bring up a good point: The game is more fun when people stick to the objectives.

              With not enough BluFor to attack caches (Helicopters, any sort of Logi/Sniper squad, and Base Defense taking away vital groundpounders from the fight), the Ins/Tali often have a ball running around the map rampantly to attack the BluFor. While this change in the main base rule will not single handedly force all Ins/Tali players within 300m of the cache, it will diminish the 'go attack their base' and 'kill their vehicles for tickets it will make us win' ideology in insurgency as of late, and it will also get a few more players in the fight and able to shoot back against those who ambush other friendly troops.


              The more the merrier.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                It does NOT make sense if you are wanting to have a 'realistic' environment. Insurgents should be able to attack the Blufor main if TG is trying for realism. Insurgents do go on the offensive when it is to their benefit, if you are worried, as Blufor, about asset tickets then move them or use them, it just does not make sense complaining about losing tickets and having to protect the Blufor's base. There are plenty of BluFor to attack caches even with a bit of protection for the main. I have seen a shift in the OpFor being able to win in the last two weeks of play, 2 wins to 13 losses is the count I have from the 15 maps I have played like this, this rule does not make much sense now. I believe implementing this rule will shift the win loss column even further for the Blufor. Has anyone tallied win losses on these maps? Maybe my numbers are just skewed because of play times.
                sigpic

                OLD GUYS RULE!!!!

                Humor is something that thrives between man's aspirations and his limitations. There is more logic in humor than in anything else. Because, you see, humor is truth. Victor Borge


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                  Originally posted by Startrekern View Post
                  and with the addition of all the trees nothing short of a sniper can engage the US main.

                  I completely forgot about the new Korengal having trees (only played it once since .9 and only on the southern side)

                  In that case, consider my post null and void

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                    Originally posted by brettwad View Post
                    It does NOT make sense if you are wanting to have a 'realistic' environment. Insurgents should be able to attack the Blufor main if TG is trying for realism. Insurgents do go on the offensive when it is to their benefit, if you are worried, as Blufor, about asset tickets then move them or use them, it just does not make sense complaining about losing tickets and having to protect the Blufor's base. There are plenty of BluFor to attack caches even with a bit of protection for the main. I have seen a shift in the OpFor being able to win in the last two weeks of play, 2 wins to 13 losses is the count I have from the 15 maps I have played like this, this rule does not make much sense now. I believe implementing this rule will shift the win loss column even further for the Blufor. Has anyone tallied win losses on these maps? Maybe my numbers are just skewed because of play times.
                    Except we're missing one key fact that has been stated before. PR is still 32vs.32. In real life, there would be at least a company sized element defending a base and all the assets. We can't mimic that here. If we are truely talking about realism as soon as the insurgents made an attack on the main they'd be slaughtered. Look at it from the base defense aspect. To make 1 squad a permanent emplacement takes away from the gameplay aspect of players actually partaking the the objective of the mission. This rule is valid in all circumstances.

                    And in all honesty.. you can still baserape.. just wait till they cross the bridge on Ramiel, or the road on Korengal 200m down the road. Post your people on the mountains and use teamwork to coordinate that "US is moving, get ready to hit". Adapt to the changes, even if they aren't what might be "truly" realistic.


                    These Things We Do... That Other's May Live

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                      Originally posted by brettwad View Post
                      It does NOT make sense if you are wanting to have a 'realistic' environment. Insurgents should be able to attack the Blufor main if TG is trying for realism. Insurgents do go on the offensive when it is to their benefit, if you are worried, as Blufor, about asset tickets then move them or use them, it just does not make sense complaining about losing tickets and having to protect the Blufor's base. There are plenty of BluFor to attack caches even with a bit of protection for the main. I have seen a shift in the OpFor being able to win in the last two weeks of play, 2 wins to 13 losses is the count I have from the 15 maps I have played like this, this rule does not make much sense now. I believe implementing this rule will shift the win loss column even further for the Blufor. Has anyone tallied win losses on these maps? Maybe my numbers are just skewed because of play times.
                      You didn't read the post about the new rule. I specifically stated the rule was changed for game-play reasons even though attacks on mains are realistic (paraphrase but close enough). We want players to focus on their objectives. Attacking the main is not something we want to promote on TG.

                      "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                        Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                        You didn't read the post about the new rule. I specifically stated the rule was changed for game-play reasons even though attacks on mains are realistic (paraphrase but close enough). We want players to focus on their objectives. Attacking the main is not something we want to promote on TG.
                        Disposable is absolutely right. One thing that people seem to have forgotten as of late is that PR is a team game. You are doing your part to aid your TEAM in success. Points dont matter. K/D ratios dont matter. Get your game face on, find your role and play it out to the best of your ability. Nobody should be in this so they can say "I camped outside of main with a sniper rifle and got 45 kills". If you're attacking main, you're not helping your team. That same sniper rifle could have been used to keep enemies from approaching a cache that your team is actively defending. We need to paradigm shift back to team-based play and less of the individual statistics concerns. If you're worried about ego and looking good, when you're a team player, you're going to get it a lot more. Sure, it's nice to be able to brag about having a huge K/D one round in a thousand, but it's much nicer to have a lasting memento of being a team player when you're decorated with a ribbon because of your contribution.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                          That same sniper rifle could have been used to keep enemies from approaching a cache that your team is actively defending.
                          Or that sniper rifle could be used to drain enemy tickets, keep coalition troops at main so they could not reinforce other squads attacking caches?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                            i love this rule change. nothing is worse (and un-realistic, if you want to go that route) than spawning and getting shot before you have any situational awareness. i know...just build fob's and there wont be a problem right? meh. it doesnt always work that way, and we all know it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rule Change discussion: Attacking BluFor Main on Insurgency

                              Originally posted by Redd_Wiggler View Post
                              i love this rule change. nothing is worse (and un-realistic, if you want to go that route) than spawning and getting shot before you have any situational awareness. i know...just build fob's and there wont be a problem right? meh. it doesnt always work that way, and we all know it.
                              Redd, I'm not sure if you meant that spawning on FOBs is now protected or you were talking about just spawning on your main, so I will clarify.

                              Your main (where you have a permanent spawn point) is now going to be off-limits.

                              Spawning on a player-deployed spawn (FOB, RP) is not protected by the rules. You are spawning in hostile territory and dying there is all part of the business of "war".

                              If I've misunderstood then I apologize, I just wanted to make sure the distinction between the two was clear.

                              "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X