Ins Revamp

[LudacrisKill]

Ins can be fun but I find that its coming down to way to much luck.

A lot of the time it comes down to cache position. For example Karbala, it is pretty easy for a heavy veh originated US side to take a cache down anywhere unless its deep in the city.

All cache locations should be hard to get to. I've seen a cache spawn on the pavement on karbala once. I really don't think ins would just leave a cache lying around like that.

I think many would agree that they would prefer a lot less possible cache locations and making them all inside a building or well hidden.


I've also found that it actually usually pays off more to try and rush a sqd in to a cache and just all run for it hoping someone will get an incendiary on it. With 25 tickets per cache it seems fine to waste a sqd 4 times as long as you succeed on the 5th time.

Ins shouldn't be like this. Caches should be fought for not just taken by random luck.


When a good defence of one cache is being done usually the other gets taken out too easily. This is extremely frustrating and unrewarding.


So I would suggest this...

A lot less caches per round...I would suggest 3 and maybe no ticket gain or increase to 50 ticket gain. (I'm not sure which would be better, probably depends on starting tickets)

That caches are 'capable' like flags. A cache would have a 1m cap radius and will count as destroyed/neutralised when blufor cap it. This is to prevent 1 guy just sneaking in and getting it down. Or rushing tactics.

Caches have a lot more 'hit-points' and would require multiple incendiaries, like 5 or 10. This would mean that blufor would have to secure the cache not just get 1 incendiary or 1.5 clips of a standard mag into it.

The possibility of only having 1 cache at a time so that ins don't get cheated on their defence on one cache while another is poorly defended or not at all. You may think that it would be too easy for the ins to defend but with less caches in a round, it might be ok. Barracuda, for example, starts with 1 flag yet with the whole Chinese defending I still see it capped often.

It may sound a bit arcade like because I got the idea from BF:BC2 but hear me out. The rush mode (in BC2) has 1 defending team and 1 attacking team where a explosive charge has to be placed on a objective. The charge has a timer and can be defused. Attacking team obviously have to set the charge and make sure it doesn't get defused while the defending team have to make sure the charge isn't set, if it is, they must make sure they defuse it.
I do believe that a similar scenario could work with caches.


Treat these suggestions as individual ones, maybe not for all of them to be implemented at the same time.

I am not sure how much of this is possible with the engine but something has to be done about the huge luck factor there is in ins.

Thanks
Luda

[Imchicken1]

I personally think Insurgency is fine other than a few balancing issues. If they insurgents are defending one cache well they should keep in mind their other one, and etc etc

I think a big problem is the squads that go off scouting accidently stumble upon unknown caches that spawned 2 minutes ago. (yes, i remember bein on that game in archer with you Luda)

[Rudd]

we did have a nasty Archer round where the Canadians were lucky/cheating, and we did get the bug where a cache blew up during server loading.

what would be great atm is if the cache didn't actually spawn for about 5 minutes, that way INS can spawn at the location and defend it when it spawns, rather than it appearing next to a bunch of blufor and being destroyed immediately.

And it would be great if INS didn't have to constantly defend the same caches if the blufor can't get them.
after 40mins I'd love it if the caches disappeared, took 30 tickets from blufor and then spawned again as normal. <- rewards good defenders, and keeps the game moving forward if tis in a stalemate.

[Web_cole]

Personally I quite like Insurgency as it is, although the balance probably needs to be shifted back towards Ins. slightly.

[Trooper909]

we did have a nasty Archer round where the Canadians were lucky/cheating, and we did get the bug where a cache blew up during server loading.

what would be great atm is if the cache didn't actually spawn for about 5 minutes, that way INS can spawn at the location and defend it when it spawns, rather than it appearing next to a bunch of blufor and being destroyed immediately.

And it would be great if INS didn't have to constantly defend the same caches if the blufor can't get them.
after 40mins I'd love it if the caches disappeared, took 30 tickets from blufor and then spawned again as normal. <- rewards good defenders, and keeps the game moving forward if tis in a stalemate.

This is a great idea.

Seen a round on Karengal vally were a cache lasted the whole round as it was deep in a cave.

[Imchicken1]

Yeah. +1 for Rudd's idea about the caches only lasting so long then respawning else where. It could simulate the Insurgents "evacuating" or transporting all their munitions to a safe location. It would make Insurgency rounds shorter as well, if the Blufor team is a bunch of rtards (excuse my language)

[Conman51]

I suggest to get rid of the squad rushing and luck destroying thing, that only the combat engineer can destroy it with C4, but there would need to be more CE kits, this way a squad will need to secure a cache completely wile engineers move in to set C4, if a team fails to do this then they loose the CE kit which will result in a very bad game for the blufor, but this might be able to be countered by making caches worth 35 tix


just an idea....

[Silly_Savage]

I do like the idea of having to secure the area surrounding the cache before sending in engineers to dispose of the stockpile.

However, seeing how difficult it is already just to be able to sprint to the cache, drop an incendiary, and be able to ex filtrate the area before being swarmed with insurgents; I just don't think this would be very practical.

Also, like you've said, think of the consequences of losing a combat engineer kit to the enemy... The horrors.

[(HUN)Rud3bwoy]

Ive also seen that a cache spawns and in 5 minutes its already destroyed, but I think one cause is that many people spawn on the cache, grab and rpg kit and start firing on anything they see. On Al Basra one guy were doing this while literally standing on the cache and it wasnt hard for the blufor to find out where to direct the tank fire...

As for accidentally stumble upon an unknown cache: it can only be cured if there is only one cache present any time I think.

I agree that caches spawning right next to each other is annoying(especially if blufor destroys one and gets the other one as a present), but I dunno if it is possible to code a cache spawn location relatively to the other.

Anyway the balance on ins maps seems fine to me now, we can actually see the blufor win while in the previous version it was very rare.

[Conman51]

I do like the idea of having to secure the area surrounding the cache before sending in engineers to dispose of the stockpile.

However, seeing how difficult it is already just to be able to sprint to the cache, drop an incendiary, and be able to ex filtrate the area before being swarmed with insurgents; I just don't think this would be very practical.

Also, like you've said, think of the consequences of losing a combat engineer kit to the enemy... The horrors.

with a little coordination from apcs and tanks and stuff it shouldn't be too hard...maybe make it so c4 doesnt stick? that way loosing the CE kit wont be too bad

[Cheditor]

+1 on rudd's idea, had 3 caches go down in archers main village/town because when the canadians were clearing found the caches spawning there.

[yakuz]

+1 for rudd, but I think there would need to be a delay on cache spawning because normally blufor are a lot more mobile than ins and so could just load up a heli at mainbase and beat the ins to their own new cache.

[Murkey]

Another +1 for Rudd's idea.
To be honest I think Insurgency mode works pretty well right now as it is. But I'm not opposed to trying new ways of improving it.

Luda's ideas are good too - any way of keeping the tempo up and ensuring neither team gets a raw deal due to bad luck and stochastic events are always worth considering.

[KingKong.CCCP]

-3 for Rudd idea, and +5 for LudacrisKill, cos he is awesomer then Rudd. ^^

[Stoic Sentinel]

-3 for Rudd idea, and +5 for LudacrisKill, cos he is awesomer then Rudd. ^^

I +3 Rudd and -5 Luda therefore negating this post.

On topic: I really like Rudd's idea with the shifting of the caches and the ticket loss for BLUFOR not getting there fast enough.

[alberto_di_gio]

I also think current version (7 caches) are good. Fewer caches mean to stuck at certain location of a map (even worse for INS because then game would just go on for 40 min in a 20 m2 bunker room)

But on the other hand I support that cache locations or destroying ways should be changed. Last week in Fellujah I destroyed 2 caches only by lock. One I found in the middle of the market place while just aimlessly walking around. It was lying under a market stand. And the second one just appeared behind me while sniping on a roof.

Destroying a cache is totally a different thing. Any change will definitely effect game play greatly. I'm also annoyed most of the time BLUFOR taking caches with tanks or LBs from long range even not sending single infantry in but it is no so un-realistic at the end. I mean cache to one side it really should not be a big problem for Abrams to raze whole that 2 floor building to the ground with 3 or 4 shots.

So if you are putting a cache into that building nothing to do. May be caches should only be hidden in bunkers, tunnels, underground hide outs or etc. But than other problem will show up. because you can not have 25 bunkers, 50 tunnels or so on sometime later everyone will able to know where the cache exactly is.

[Web_cole]

And it would be great if INS didn't have to constantly defend the same caches if the blufor can't get them.
after 40mins I'd love it if the caches disappeared, took 30 tickets from blufor and then spawned again as normal. <- rewards good defenders, and keeps the game moving forward if tis in a stalemate.

That actually would be quite cool, although I think it should be slightly randomized how long the caches stick around for. Say 40 mins - 55/1h. That way things would become more intense the longer the cache was up, and the uncertainty in not knowing how long left you have to defend/destroy the cache would add to that considerably.