Sad new blow to INF

[yurch]

Beeing seriously shot should be a real huge fukin penalty and nobody should ever try to imagine to think about to risk beeing shot in the game.

The biggest risk in infiltration right now is letting the enemy stay alive for any longer than you can. Consider that and the extremely fast offensive response players are capable of and you have your problem. Damage systems work both ways. In this case, it could even work against you, "head on" collisions between players would end with the defensive players (we would normally want to award) with aggravating wounds from 'lucky' shots. I tend to escape many defensive situations wounded, and it's certainly not because I wasn't "careful".

RAv3 of course, attempts to reduce offensive capability.

 

[keihaswarrior]

The problem is EAS doesn't work well with zero reinforcements. When the defenders are all dead, the attackers should win automatically. But they have to still go get the cd and extract which is a pain.

Also, the rounds are much faster with only 1 life but we still have to switch maps every 2 rounds. It would be much better if we could play multiple rounds as attackers, switch to defense, play multiple rounds, then have the score be cumulative of all the rounds.

RAv3:
The recoil doesn't seem to be time sensitive, the sway gets better, but not the recoil. This means that people still just strafe-scan, strafe, crouch, and instantly open fire... only they walk the fire onto the defender killing him. It takes 5x the bullets, but is almost as fast.

Also, the sway seems to reset after the defender moves just one inch, which means you're totally ****ed if the target moves a little out of your view. It would be nice if the sway gradually increased just like it decreases.

But, hopefully yurch is too busy with bigger and better things than RAv3

 

[Kitty.cat]

The problem is EAS doesn't work well with zero reinforcements. When the defenders are all dead, the attackers should win automatically. But they have to still go get the cd and extract which is a pain.

Also, the rounds are much faster with only 1 life but we still have to switch maps every 2 rounds. It would be much better if we could play multiple rounds as attackers, switch to defense, play multiple rounds, then have the score be cumulative of all the rounds.

If the defenders keep quiet, and dead talk is off. You'll never know if the D is all gone . Isn't THAT a paranoid thought. Also a realistic one.

Re: Multiple turns in a position - I like that idea. Mebbe we could go bribe someone to make that a gametype. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to do. Attack Attack Attack, Defend Defend Defend, best score wins. Tie game? I dunno. Best of the times, probably.

 

[keihaswarrior]

If the defenders keep quiet, and dead talk is off. You'll never know if the D is all gone . Isn't THAT a paranoid thought. Also a realistic one.

Yes, but it isn't that hard to figure out. The extra couple minutes added to each round due to extracting the cd are boring.

Re: Multiple turns in a position - I like that idea. Mebbe we could go bribe someone to make that a gametype. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to do. Attack Attack Attack, Defend Defend Defend, best score wins. Tie game? I dunno. Best of the times, probably.

Not many ties, hopefully the mutie/newgametype could keep track of the lives like EAS does currently. *hope

 

[Kitty.cat]

Yes, but it isn't that hard to figure out. The extra couple minutes added to each round due to extracting the cd are boring.

I think if the defenders played it right, in a big game, it'd be very hard to keep track of who's alive and who's dead. Especially if you couldn't F1 it. You could get defenders playing dead, but actually sneaking back to ambush you when you try to return the CD. I think it bring a whole new mental aspect into the game o0;

 

[Beppo]

Yes, but it isn't that hard to figure out. The extra couple minutes added to each round due to extracting the cd are boring.

Maybe they are boring to you and some others but the reason behind it should be obvious. The mission is the goal in EAS and due to two rounds being played you can compare the 'effectiveness' of both teams by comparing the time needed to either defend the mission objectives or to accomplish them. If the attackers hunt down all defenders, then they still need to do their job in terms of accomplishing the mission objectives. Sure, you could say that you could just use the time needed to kill all defenders, but then the mission objectives wouldn't be the primary goal within this gametype and noone would care about actually accomplishing the objectives. It would be TDM, cause all that counts is killing the enemy team. The moment the last opposing team member is killed you get an endless amount of situations and stages the mission could be in. At that point it wouldn't be fair to just compare the time needed to kill the enemy team, cause the number of accomplished objectives can differ. And then you would need to value each of the mission objectives to be able to compare the two rounds in a fair way.
So, we made it easier for the player and for us to compare two rounds where each attacking team was able to kill the whole defending team by judging it exactly the same way as a standard round where the attacking team was able to accomplish their mission. And with that, the amount of reinforcements alive and the time needed to accomplish the mission stays the main goal of the game type, and not the time needed to kill the enemy team.

Beppo

 

[mat69]

Sorry to bring that up again, but if suppressive fire does work in INF I'm and most other guys are just too worse players to use it or it is unrealistically implemented. A MG is born for the suppressive role and that is not that hard in rl (but for that the guys who have been in real firefights should know more than we), at least while training. Where the penalties Psycho pointed out could improve the capabilty of the MGer.

 

[Nukeproof]

@ Beppo:

For maps with sophisticated missions (aka Reaktor 46 - I know its not a Sentry map). I would determin winner by ammount of objects accomplished, that makes more sense IMO.

 

[Psychomorph]

The reinforcements are meant to simulate a larger ammount of mobile infantry.
So killing huge ammounts of soldiers should not affect the mission, except the attackers suffer to many casualties, than the mission should be aborted, but only after a large time span. Or when the defenders suffer to many casualties they fall back and leave the objective location, so the attackers dominated and win.

When it is a SpecOps mission, they should be no reinforcements.

With the static EAS maps and objectives a game without reinforcements will be a plain TDM.


Lets be honest, EAS rocks most with a large ammount of players.
The more players the more deaths, the more deaths the faster you can respawn in waves and play more often.

 

[zeep]

Kitty, how long have you been playing inf btw? I've never met any .cat online yet. In another post i saw someone welcoming you to buf and i believe your reply suggested you're no stranger to inf.

 

[Kitty.cat]

I've been playing INF since it was an awful but but inspiring UT mutator. I remember going through Coret Facility "aiming" my Mp5 (which kinda moved it on your screen and put a crosshair infront of you, if you weren't around for it) and kinda passively followed it until 2.86. Where I played with bots because the Mac support was awful (you couldn't bind keys, and the online play didn't work, you either couldn't find servers or would mismatch constantly. And yes, I tried reinstalling about 8 times, trying to figure out if I did something wrong). It was until 2.9 that I started playing online and got involved with the community. And the .cat thing is a pretty new development. It all stemmed from me playing the First to Fight US Marines training tool and saying "why can't WE play that realistically". So yes, INF is by no means new to me. The community, for a part, is.

Regarding what Beppo says: Right on. That's exactly how I feel. I think if you're going to whine about the way it's set up, then you're really just whining about reality. Reality isn't TDM and reality doesn't let you respawn (unless you believe in reincarnation. But it certainly doesn't happen within a minute of death, as a new soldier ) Psycho did make a good point, however. I'm almost tempted to say each player should have ONE reinforce. For the attackers, it'd be a backup reserve unit. For the defenders, it'd be simply calling one of the troops situated in the area in for backup defense. But considering most of our EAS maps are pretty special ops, I don't think 5 reinforcements is very realistic by any means.

 

[Rostam]

Everybody likes a different flavour of INF. It's why you have to download a zillion mutators every time you join a server. Meh, I like diversity. But things like DTAS and picking a different weapon loadout are good enough for me.

I stopped playing though. Last couple of times INF annoyed me. It annoyed me not because of a lack in teamwork, lack in diversity, lack of objectives (in TDM) or whatever. I just didn't like the lack of intelligence. In my experience nothing is more fun than playing a team full of guys similar to Midwinter, or Lamer. Midwinter being the smart one and Lamer being the crazy one. Both surprise you, make you adjust. However the last 5 hours of INF I've played were a copy of the first round. Even in DTAS (which was TDM in which the defenders have an advantage), but of course more specifically TDM. I decided to stop as long as the great people aren't around as often. Because just 1 Midwinter isn't good enough. A good game of INF requires atleast 10. Something similar to a weekly war (or DTAS night I think you call it this time?) would interest me. I still have INF installed just in case.

 

[zeep]

..I decided to stop as long as the great people aren't around as often.

Not to worry Ros, i'm playing more next week.

 

[2_SeeK_U]

Sadly, this pretty much a problem since 2.85.3 (maybe even earlier).

hahaha...

I can't believe l'm still waiting for the next inf actually :|

 

[Beppo]

@ Beppo:

For maps with sophisticated missions (aka Reaktor 46 - I know its not a Sentry map). I would determin winner by ammount of objects accomplished, that makes more sense IMO.

As you said, it makes sense for specific setups. But we had to find a general rule for our officially released maps in the first place of course.
And even maps with a dozen of objectives still would need a value system for each of the objectives. And then you get in trouble with which objective gets a higher value than another. If every objective gets the same value, then mappers would be forced to setup the objectives 'similar'. Means each of them would need to be as 'easy' to accomplish as any other in the same ammount of time. Else you will force a team to accomplish objective A first, and that always, cause you can reach it faster or easier than ie objective B, and so you 'earn' your 'mission points' in an unbalanced way. And again, this would then foster a very similar way of accomplishing the mission objectives which makes it predictable for ie. the defenders, what to secure first aso.

You would end up with endless debates about why this or that objective got this or that value, even if all objectives get the same value cause some are easier to accomplish than others.
So, to avoid any kind of confusion or unfairness we simply decided to only count the whole mission as a success.
First priority within INF EAS is to keep as many reinforcements alive as possible. Second is the amount of time needed to accomplish your mission, be it defender or attacker.
That way you get something that can be compared in a fair way.

@Kitty
the reinforcements within INF EAS are optional due to the fact that there are a lot of 'philosophies' about this stuff out there - as you can see here actually .
The standard setup within INF EAS was choosen to get something out of it that is fun for the hardcore and the average gamer, with a small amount of reinforcements to allow people to reenter the mission even if they died within the first minutes of gameplay and to foster defenders to actually defend due to a smaller amount of reinforcements available on startup.
In terms of 'realism' the reinforcements are exactly that, reinforcements. Attackers usually have more 'teams' available within this scenario than the defenders to not let them switch roles too easily. But if the attackers take too much time to accomplish their mission goals, then the defenders get a new wave of reinforcements send out by their leading staff or whatever to support the situation.

 

[Kitty.cat]

Yeah. I think the way the reinforcements were programmed was a very smart idea. I just think it was built in a good enough way that people are abusing it by getting another, for example, 5 waves of people to run in. Noone in their right mind would send in 5 teams for a single objective, one after another, just to get slaughtered if the defense was good enough. (That's why I think when I host I'm going to have 1 set of reinforce for both teams. And the D will still have to wait for it )

 

[{GD}Odie3]

Well, I do not think I am abusing the reinforcements with GD EAS Server. The reinforcements setting being so high is mostly [if not all] so players that get killed right off do not have to wait forever till the round ends. I am sure that if I had a setting of one and a player got TK'ed he/she would be most upset [as what happened to KW a number of times last night].

I think your setting is just fine [or any other for that matter] since it is the opinion of the Admin what to set.

 

[Pipe_Dream]

My God!!!! Is this what I've worked so hard for? Silly-ass complaints that are as random as Crac being civil? You talk about me burning holes? What is this thread about? Jesus Christ!

 

[Crowze]

You? Work?

 

[Derelan]

I've eaten things that complain less than you people.