Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Korengal on TG

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

  • #61
    Re: Korengal on TG

    cougar beat me to the confirmation :)

    CRF also confirmed that the base in the thick of fighting is the current plan, so I doubt the map will ever fit regular rotation game play at TG :(
    |TG-6th|Snooggums

    Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Korengal on TG

      US troops pull out of Korengal Valley, Afghanistan.


      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7097901.ece
      -oG.WarrioR-


      |?|

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Korengal on TG

        Originally posted by snooggums View Post
        cougar beat me to the confirmation :)

        CRF also confirmed that the base in the thick of fighting is the current plan, so I doubt the map will ever fit regular rotation game play at TG :(
        It might be worth it to establish conditional rules (ones that work across the board, not just for Korengal) that allows for it to work once we get a more refined rendition of Korengal. Something like "If a Conventional Army's base is within 500m of the objective, it is in play." (I realize that this is not an ideal example, but I don't have an ideal example thought up just yet)

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Korengal on TG

          Originally posted by Celestial1 View Post
          It might be worth it to establish conditional rules (ones that work across the board, not just for Korengal) that allows for it to work once we get a more refined rendition of Korengal. Something like "If a Conventional Army's base is within 500m of the objective, it is in play." (I realize that this is not an ideal example, but I don't have an ideal example thought up just yet)
          At this point the admin team is reluctant to make map specific rules, hence the current removal.

          Your suggestion would cause a lot of confusion as how would the BluFor know it was within 500m even if discovered (mark may be up to 140m in the opposite direction making it appear 640m away). The main difference between the bridge on Fool's Road and Korengal is that the bridge on Fool's Road can easily be explained to new players as breaking the rule of no camping exits. If players are allowed to attack the US main on Korengal it would easily cause confusion on the rest of the insurgent maps as they all have US mains, and as noted we already had issues when it wasn't allowed on any maps at all.

          I'm sure your number was random but as Korengal is a 1km map a 500m radius is going to cover about 80% of the cache markers on Korengal as noted by the big blue circle below :)
          Attached Files
          |TG-6th|Snooggums

          Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Korengal on TG

            Originally posted by OriginalWarrior View Post
            US troops pull out of Korengal Valley, Afghanistan.


            http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7097901.ece

            Beat you to it, go back a page ;)

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Korengal on TG

              Originally posted by snooggums View Post
              At this point the admin team is reluctant to make map specific rules, hence the current removal.
              Of course, and I don't disagree at all; I think it was a good decision especially due to the map's current bugs and imbalance, as well as conflicts with our ruleset. I'm only suggesting a possible future reevaluation... "Hey, Korengal is now as it's intended to be... is there a way to make it work for us now?" Of course, it would still have to be in a way that fits in with our ideals and allows the map to be played, more or less, as intended.

              And like I said, it's not an ideal figure, and it's not even an ideal manner to declare it as legal; something other than a 'range' could be much better. I haven't yet come up with a good idea; the point is that if some sort of arbitrary rule which would apply across the board as desired (like how the range would apply 90% of the time on Korengal, and much less frequently on Fool's Road, only when Militia is attacking Dylym).

              But yeah, I don't at all think that the 500m idea is a good solution, because it's very hard to interpret and is far too concrete for its purpose.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Korengal on TG

                Or we could go with a much simpler option and allow baserape on Korrengal alone, as was intended by the map developer. This map is an exception to the general ideology of TG and PR itself, so I see no reason why we should not match that exception in the rules.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Korengal on TG

                  The philosophy of TG is to play the game in a way that fits our Primer. If something doesn't comply, it's ruled against and usually concessions are made only if it is an essential part of the game itself.

                  At this point in time it just doesn't warrant the change, in my opinion. Maybe next release if everything is patched up on it, but for now it's not worth it.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Korengal on TG

                    Originally posted by Startrekern View Post
                    Or we could go with a much simpler option and allow baserape on Korrengal alone, as was intended by the map developer. This map is an exception to the general ideology of TG and PR itself, so I see no reason why we should not match that exception in the rules.
                    I can see one.
                    If a pubbie player joins on Korengal and he is allowed to baserape there, he will think that he can do it on all other INS maps too.
                    And this will cause more work for the admins.
                    As Celestial said if the map changes in the future to fit TG's type of gamestyle it will most likely be implemented again.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Korengal on TG

                      Does Korrengal violate the primer? I don't believe it does, personally. Let's look at the Primer for a moment:

                      3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.
                      Due to the type of outpost that is present on the Korrengal map in PR, I have to say that baserape of it is entirely realistic. It occurs on a daily basis in real life on similar such outposts.

                      "But spawnrape is bad!"

                      You may quote this bit:

                      In Battlefield 2 it becomes a bit more complex; when a player enters into a game they lack any form of situational awareness. They are not able to determine the situation to which they are entering and do not have the opportunity to mount a proper defensive reaction. In the real world, reinforcements would be transported in and would arrive with their situational awareness intact. An offense could be assembled in an area not currently in conflict, and a push could be made to re-take regions that have been overrun. By restricting the assaults on uncapturable bases it allows this occurrence to happen in spite of the game’s limitations. It allows both teams to organize and present themselves in a strategic and tactical manner without having their lack of situational awareness exploited by the opposing team.
                      Spawning without situational awareness on Korrengal is not an issue EXCEPT at the black-hawk wreck. In the main base, you spawn inside structures and have to practically walk through a (very well protected) maze to get into the open. I don't believe the main base on Korrengal is your typical UCB where you spawn in the open and can get sniped instantly (Read: Beirut).

                      In Project Reality, we see three types of mainbases:

                      The "Large", well fortified, well established and well defended main base far behind enemy lines. This is present on Ramiel, Qinling, Kashan, and other very large maps. As the maps get smaller, we start seeing these types of mainbases:

                      "Medium" Forward Operating Bases, fairly close to the action and well within range of enemy fire. These are typically still well removed from the combat zone on the map and shouldn't be attacked imo. Fallujah, Qwai, etc. are good examples of this.

                      "Outpost". This type of main base is only really present in Korrengal (at the moment) and I think it is an exception to the general idea of UCBs. It's in the middle of the map, heavily fortified, surrounded by tall mountains and the intention of the map developer was for it to be attacked. It is in a class of it's own for this reason.

                      At the moment we have something like this (paraphrased) at the top of the screen: "No UCB attacking unless <snip>"

                      Could easily be changed to "UCB Attacking is not allowed except on Korrengal." That's really not too hard to understand.


                      Korrengal's mainbase will likely never change, as the current gameplay it has was the intention and still is the intention of the map. The BH wreck permaspawn was a mistake, and for that we can keep it off the rotation, but I think it's not a good idea to keep it off permanently because of the mainbase.

                      Quick edit: I also don't think it's fair to restrict baseraping on that map because this also (basically) restricts people firing OUT OF the main into the valley, which is absolutely silly -- US troops should be able to fire and take return fire by insurgents, which includes mortars, snipers, SAW fire, the works. That's how it actually happens in real life.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2hnXgrnlUQ

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Korengal on TG

                        Frankly I'm tired of reading the "it happens in real life so it should happen here" argument. Nothing could be further from the truth.

                        The truth is is that we run a gaming server, not a real-life simulator. Yes, we want you to play the game using real-life tactics, but that is entirely different to arguing that something should be allowed because it happens in real life. The thought process should be "use real-life tactics within the context of our rules and Primer" and not that "the rules and Primer should mimic real life". There is a distinct difference in the two.

                        Our community and our servers are intended to reflect a philosophy in gaming that is different than what you'll find elsewhere. We cherish teamwork, coordination and an attitude that is opposite of the "gaming the game" that is so prevalent in other servers and other games. Call it a gaming "Code of Honor", or a sense of fair-play, if you will, but that is what we hold most dear above all else.

                        Rules work best under 3 main conditions:

                        1) They are simple to understand and follow
                        2) They are consistent
                        3) They are unbiased

                        What does allowing attacks on the main gain the insurgent side? Obviously, it gives them a chance to defend themselves from the US team firing out of the main. This is understandable, but I don't think that an awful lot of us agree with that position. Why? Because it is only going to encourage the US team to hole-up inside their fortress as, once again, the Taliban side will be allowed to descend upon the base en masse and camp the main base. This takes us right back where we were in the prior rule set where half the insurgent side was trying to attack the enemy main instead of defending their caches and, in addition to being hamstrung by the rally point changes, the BluFor team spent most of the round trying to get out of their main instead of hunting the caches.

                        Allowing main attacks also allows the insurgent side to call in an area attack on the concentrated US forces and their assets. Considering the unbiased argument, what does the US team get to reciprocate back to the Taliban side with? Artillery on their main? Hardly. This is a one-sided affair in that regard, so here we have a rule change that clearly benefits one side over the other. You could argue that it is necessary to defeat some of the attacks being used against the insurgent teams (CROWS, scoped weapons, H-ATs, etc.), but I would argue that it also does attack players who have just spawned and disorientated or who are not participating in any form of attack from within the main. It is, after all, an area attack, right?

                        By the way, the intended objective of insurgency, designed and coded by the DEV team, is for one team to hunt caches and the other side to protect them. I don't think the DEV team has released a game mode focused on siege warfare, although I am open to being corrected if someone can present clear evidence contradicting this.

                        So, in light of these facts, the admin team decided that Korengal just doesn't jive with TG right now for public play. Some of you may have actually taken the time to read that we may very well play it on password nights, so if you have, BRAVO for you. It isn't gone-gone, just gone from public play because a majority of players are not capable of playing the game the TG way and instead insist on gaming the game. It isn't worth the trouble.

                        So, stop with the "realism" argument because realism didn't enter the discussion once with regard to allowing the map to remain in the rotation. It has all centered around what is right for our community.

                        "You milsim guys are ruining the game."
                        |TG-42nd|Wicks-Today at 4:47 PM

                        No it was fine mate I'm just an *******

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Korengal on TG

                          Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                          By the way, the intended objective of insurgency, designed and coded by the DEV team, is for one team to hunt caches and the other side to protect them. I don't think the DEV team has released a game mode focused on siege warfare, although I am open to being corrected if someone can present clear evidence contradicting this.
                          Siege at Ochamichira? ;)

                          I kid though, that map doesn't have a tiny base with walls and guns as a last stand type battle that dipso is referring to. Even if there was a PR map where the entire point was to assault the enemies main base we would probably not have it in the normal rotation as it would not fit the kind of game play we are looking for. As noted, the main base rules for Insurgency were not changed for realism reasons as we don't allow attacks on mains on other Insurgency maps that also represent areas with main bases at the edge of combat like Fallujah West, which doesn't suffer from the same player issues because the main doesn't overlook most of the cache locations like Korengal.
                          |TG-6th|Snooggums

                          Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Korengal on TG

                            Originally posted by Startrekern View Post
                            Does Korrengal violate the primer?
                            The third principle of the Primer regards game-play under the TacticalGamer philosophy. "Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing...strategy and tactics rather than...exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage...it gives over the opposing team." Korengal, by design, allows players to fire out of, and into, the base; this can be seen as an exploit in context of the primer.

                            Any activity "that capitalizes on the limitations of a game to provide the advantage rather than that advantage coming from superior teamwork, strategy and tactics, is frowned upon." The limitation of a game, in this sense, is not only the lack of extraneous players to defend the outpost, and from the lack of several forms of external support that would be available to those forces otherwise, but also the inability for either side to employ any sort of sophisticated tactics and strategy. By being in the main base on Korengal as US, you are using game limitations to your advantage, in the form of protection from the Taliban by both the mapper-placed "Dome of Death" and the rules against entering the enemy outpost.

                            As explained, using the US outpost as a firing position as US is an exploitation of the game limitations and allows you to oppress the enemy with this advantage. The Primer, regarding this, states that "[t]he reward for winning through superior strategy and tactics is far greater than the reward for winning through exploitation and oppression." Fighting amongst the map's terrain is far more treacherous and enjoyable for all, whereas fighting from the outpost is far less challenging for the US, and far less enjoyable for the Taliban, who are subjected to the US team's already superior weaponry, but also the inability to fight back under certain circumstances.

                            Korengal's current rendition does not fit within the ideals of the Primer. "Tactical Gamer is here to support a particular style of game play...We are not here to cater each of our supported games to the popular demands of the broader gaming public, but to provide an environment that fits our target audience."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Korengal on TG

                              http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...-observations/

                              very related, as TG does, CENTCOM does.
                              Stay together, communicate, don't give up.

                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Korengal on TG

                                Originally posted by Paine View Post
                                http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/201...-observations/

                                very related, as TG does, CENTCOM does.

                                Do.. people even read the thread? Been brought up 3 times over the last two pages :P

                                I just lol that we did it first.

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X