Smaller radius for hideouts

[badmojo420]

Since hideouts are much smaller than firebases and they have no other deployables, they're much easier to hide, especially in dense urban environments. But, they still become overrun just as easily as a FOB. I suggest we make the radius around the hideouts smaller. The radius is the area around a hideout where if 2 enemy players come within it, the hideout loses its ability to spawn people in. The white circle disappears and you have to wait until ~5 minutes after they've left before you can spawn in again.

The problem with this system, is that people can be hiding in a corner, very far away from the hideout, and still have effect on it, even if they have no idea it's there. It's fine that this strategy exists in AAS game mode, because it's obvious where the fighting is going to be taking place, and the combat is more syemmetrical. But, in insurgency the hideouts and cache areas are somewhat secret. In my opinion, the insurgency game mode is less about area control and more about area clearance. So, we should be forcing the blufor to actually find and destroy hideouts, rather then just using the tactic of swarming into an area, hiding like cowards and picking off insurgents 1 by 1, until there are no more in the area, because the spawns are overrun from a long distance.

I feel like the numbers for overrunning (and even placing) hideouts are more suited for bigger 4km maps. When in reality we're mostly playing insurgency on 1 & 2km maps, which makes it not only hard to maintain your hideouts, but it's even hard to place more than one in some areas.

In no way do i want to create spammy gameplay where insurgents are pouring out of hideouts while the blufor are walking towards them. My point is that when a squad walks down a street, I don't think they should be overrunning spawn points on the next street over. That should require further clearing.

[Imchicken1]

+1

After all, it IS called a "hideout"

[alberto_di_gio]

+1 from me too

[Ford_Jam]

The radius isn't that big that it's a problem.

If it's a 1km map and your dogbox is over-run then build more dogboxes!
Put several around a cache, it's possible.
or WALK from somewhere further away

[Expatriate Gamer]

The radius isn't that big that it's a problem.

If it's a 1km map and your dogbox is over-run then build more dogboxes!
Put several around a cache, it's possible.
or WALK from somewhere further away

You really don't know what your talking about, its a directional thing. Taking out 1 Hideout near a cache changes the whole fight and its very easy to overrun them.

+1 I agree, make it every 125m or something.

[Ford_Jam]

Why is that?
If building one dogbox to defend a cache isn't working for your team then build two or three. Simple

Hell I've seen all six dogboxes built around two knowns that spawned next to each other. Held the area for a good 90 minutes

[rushn]

+100 to this idea they are different from firebases that you can fortify

[Psyrus]

Why is that?
If building one dogbox to defend a cache isn't working for your team then build two or three. Simple

Hell I've seen all six dogboxes built around two knowns that spawned next to each other. Held the area for a good 90 minutes

Agreed Ford_Jam, although I wouldn't mind a few more dogboxes as insurgents, since there's generally just 1 main spawn and no rallies (taliban can have 6x still). I always run out of dogboxes when I'm SL... I could definitely make use of an extra 2-4 dogboxes for ambushes & fake caches. Currently you really do have to devote 3 dogboxes per cache for that triangular goodness. The extra dogboxes would be used in different areas to lead the bluforce astray, or to make quadrangles around the caches

[Teek]

Why is that?
If building one dogbox to defend a cache isn't working for your team then build two or three. Simple

Hell I've seen all six dogboxes built around two knowns that spawned next to each other. Held the area for a good 90 minutes

That works all well for AAS as you need men on the flag to retake or hold it, but on Insergency you have to keep them from getting close to the cache, if your hideout goes out because a lone wolf walks 2 blocks away from it, you might not be able to reinforce the defencive line before the Bluefor rushes the cache.

You were probably playing karabala or ramiel when your team made all 6 for two caches, wasn't it? Those maps are the right size for the current nulification zones of the dogboxes, but on fallujah or korengal the zones are simply too large and the hideouts too far away to respond in time.

Idealy the team would be good enough to win using mutiple hideouts, but teams arnt always perfectly balanced and the insurgents must use hidden hideouts.

[badmojo420]

Why is that?
If building one dogbox to defend a cache isn't working for your team then build two or three. Simple

Hell I've seen all six dogboxes built around two knowns that spawned next to each other. Held the area for a good 90 minutes

Just curious, but where did you get the idea that I was relying on only 1 hideout? Or that what we were doing with regards to the hideouts wasn't working for our team? I don't want this changed so I can build one super-hideout to end all others. I just want the game to improve.

Not every suggestion is a result of failure in game. Remember that.

[ytman]

As long as Hide Outs (HOs) don't have deployable structures I would agree whole heartedly with this suggestion. I suggest shrinking it down to a minimum of 100 meters. Hold on before you critize such a change.

Generally, on INS maps, the BluFors have superiority in weapons, equipment, and transport resulting in vast overwhelming power via medium and long ranges.

This advantage of BluFor combined with RedFor's slight CQB advantage dictate a tight defensive strategy peppered with small bursts of ambushes. As such a 100 meter HO restriction would play up the desire of drawing the enemy in CQB engagements.

[Psyrus]

Just curious, but where did you get the idea that I was relying on only 1 hideout? Or that what we were doing with regards to the hideouts wasn't working for our team? I don't want this changed so I can build one super-hideout to end all others. I just want the game to improve.

Not every suggestion is a result of failure in game. Remember that.

Since he didn't quote you when he made that response, where do you get the idea he was responding to you? [read post by Expatriate Gamer 1 above his]

[badmojo420]

Since he didn't quote you when he made that response, where do you get the idea he was responding to you? [read post by Expatriate Gamer 1 above his]

Sorry I guess I should have also included his earlier post in my quotation....

The radius isn't that big that it's a problem.

If it's a 1km map and your dogbox is over-run then build more dogboxes!
Put several around a cache, it's possible.
or WALK from somewhere further away

but they both say basically the same thing.

[rushn]

but firebases have more options and can be defended easily

[Ford_Jam]

I was replying to the post above mine actually as the guy quite kindly labeled me an idiot
Mojo I'm not saying your idea will fail horribly I was just putting in my own input, my opinion is allowed as well.

Just brainstorming here but this could even come down to different types of tactics that countries or server players have picked up while playing the game (Hell, once on TG I was the only person in the server who knew what "Dogbox" meant, but if you say it on BigD then everyone knows what you're talking about)

I've never really had a problem with dogboxes being overrun too easily, only if they are in a really terrible position like right next to the cache. If one is overrun it tells you enemies are close so you can spawn nearby and hunt them down. If you cant spawn nearby because there are no dogboxes then you have a failteam.

[badmojo420]

I was replying to the post above mine actually as the guy quite kindly labeled me an idiot
Mojo I'm not saying your idea will fail horribly I was just putting in my own input, my opinion is allowed as well.

Just brainstorming here but this could even come down to different types of tactics that countries or server players have picked up while playing the game (Hell, once on TG I was the only person in the server who knew what "Dogbox" meant, but if you say it on BigD then everyone knows what you're talking about)

I've never really had a problem with dogboxes being overrun too easily, only if they are in a really terrible position like right next to the cache. If one is overrun it tells you enemies are close so you can spawn nearby and hunt them down. If you cant spawn nearby because there are no dogboxes then you have a failteam.

Yes, I know the post I quoted was directed at Expatriate Gamer, but you just reiterated what you already said in your earlier post, which was directed at the thread in general. My bad for quoting the wrong one.

I value your opinion on this. I just felt that your concerns were not relevant to my suggestion. Even with the best placement and multiple hideouts spread all around the city. I still believe the mechanic of overrunning hideouts has too large of a radius. No matter how many hideouts you have, if they can get overrun so easily, it's a problem.

Hideouts aren't firebases. They aren't meant to be defended in the same way, they're meant to be hidden. It gets to be a bit much for insurgents when not only do they have to split the team up to defend two caches, but now they're supposed to push out and defend each hideouts 200m radius? And multiple backup hideouts?

I like the overrun game mechanic, I just think it just needs some tweaking for unconventional forces.

[ytman]

Hideouts aren't firebases. They aren't meant to be defended in the same way, they're meant to be hidden. It gets to be a bit much for insurgents when not only do they have to split the team up to defend two caches, but now they're supposed to push out and defend each hideouts 200m radius? And multiple backup hideouts?

I like the overrun game mechanic, I just think it just needs some tweaking for unconventional forces.

Excellently said.

[Psyrus]

Hideouts aren't firebases. They aren't meant to be defended in the same way, they're meant to be hidden. It gets to be a bit much for insurgents when not only do they have to split the team up to defend two caches, but now they're supposed to push out and defend each hideouts 200m radius? And multiple backup hideouts?

I like the overrun game mechanic, I just think it just needs some tweaking for unconventional forces.

It's not 200m though... it is 2x players within 50m of the dogbox... not 200m of it.

So that means at most you have to push out and defend a 50m radius if you want to defend the dogbox (although as you said, it's not really meant to be defended). Having the triangular setup means that 9 times out of 10, one or two of your boxes may go down but your third will remain, allowing you to sweep up your enemies nicely

[Tim270]

I think player placement is an issue here also. Its all to common to see a hideout place pretty much on a cache or right next to it.

[BloodBane611]

Yeah, a lot of times players walk to the nearest building/compound from the cache and pop down their hideout. Really, they should measure about 100m from the cache and do it, and then pop down 2 more for good measure.