Civis killed add tickets.

[bloodthirsty_viking]

Storyline to suggestion

I was playing today, and we did not lose alot of civis, but we had 5 caches appear one after the other in west vill of al basara, a rare event yes, but their a epic battle ensued lasting a good 40 minutes i would say.

30 min of that was with one cache, and then they just started blowing everything to h*ll.
And we had civis running, trying to find cover from the constant barrage of SAW guns, APC's, and everything else, and i thought "What if they got a bigger punishment for killing civis?"

Suggestion

What if for every X (10 or so) Civis killed outside of ROE, the Insurgent team received 1 Ticket.
If possible, for the first ticket, 10 civis, then 5 civis for each Ticket after that.

What would it do?
It would extend the game if the "Good Guys" did not watch their fire.
If they called in a J-dam, and it killed 20 civis, then they would need to destroy another cache to win. (the insurgents now would have 2-3 tickets though)

This makes the chance higher that the "Good Guys" will lose, so they can take the risk, kill more civis, and need to spend more resources on one or more caches(rasing the chances of loosing) , or they can kill less civis, and not need to kill as many caches.

This, along with a "X PLAYER HAS KILLED A CIVI" Message for all to see at the top of the screen could really discourage the killing of a civi, unless it is necessary.

What do you guys think?

Pros

• Blufor less "OK" for killing civis (more realistic)
• New tactics available for the insurgents to make the game last a long time. (this could also be a con i guess

Cons

• one person repeatedly killing civis, but a server admin can kick them.
• civi shealds being used arround the caches, but if we can use shotgun to kill them, you can just light up the area with shotguns.
• civis abusing the system by suiciding, if thats how it works

[Expatriate Gamer]

Uh, I don't like it at all, and I think its impossible anyway

[nater]

Uh, I don't like it at all, and I think its impossible anyway

I get so sick of reading that over and over in the suggestions forum, you're just doubting the Dev's.

[Indistinct0]

When an innocent civilian is killed, then yes insurgents should either get a boost or blufor gets a penalty, if the blufor kill a civilian with either the restrainers or shotgun, then its a different story. Isn't this already in game?

[Spec]

Of course penalties are in game, but it's a long story with the civilians. Very hard to find the right balance. Make the penalty too harsh, and you'll have suicidal civs. Don't have a harsh enough penalty, and you'll have blufor just shooting everyone on sight.

I don't know how good this suggestion would work out. Most important would imo be announcing who killed a civilian so server admins can take action if they have rules against killing civies for no good reason.

[Peeta]

I once suggested that the blufor lose a ticket for every civi they shoot. But someone said that the civi's would just go jumping off buildings and the BF2 engine couldn't distuingish between the civi being shot and suiciding.


EDIT: Now that you have made me think about it: that's entirely possible..... Hmmmmm

[Spec]

Problem isn't them jumping off stuff, but them asking to be shot until someone loses patience and just does it. Though, with the shotgun, it might be a little different now.

[tommytgun]

This would be pointless, because when insurgents die they don't lose tickets anyways. Ever noticed that whenever you look at your tickets as insurgents its always 10's? (70,60,50,etc?)
That is because each cache costs 10 tickets when it is destroyed, but when an insurgent/insurgent vehicle dies, there is no ticket loss. So adding tickets for killing civilians would basically make the game impossible for blufor to win seeing as insurgents don't lose tickets when they die...Ie: 11 tickets left, last cache is destroyed, no more caches left for Blufor to destroy, 1 ticket left, game goes on until Blufor runs out of tickets or the time runs out.

[billdan]

Problem isn't them jumping off stuff, but them asking to be shot until someone loses patience and just does it. Though, with the shotgun, it might be a little different now.

Correct, it is a lot different now. If recall correctly, you can also arrest regular insurgents with shotguns now, too.

Considering that your average Bluefor Infantry squad will always have a Specialist on an INS map, arresting and getting intel is very easy now. Just shotgun 5 Ins and you have intel for a cache.

I fully support this suggestion. It will not make Civis too suicidal than they already are: right now they try to get shot at long range and tend to avoid close range encounters with Bluefor cause of the threat arresting shottys. As long as the arresting capability of Shottys is kept, I don't think the behavior of Civis will change too dramatically. Maybe a little, but the change in Bluefor behavior (taking more caution when engaging) will outweigh the cons. If need be, the respawn time for civis can be increased.

[Rudd]

I once suggested that the blufor lose a ticket for every civi they shoot. But someone said that the civi's would just go jumping off buildings and the BF2 engine couldn't distuingish between the civi being shot and suiciding.


EDIT: Now that you have made me think about it: that's entirely possible..... Hmmmmm

afaik this isnt the problem as python can recognise how they die afaik.

however previously we were victims of suicide squads of civilians, they would get themselves arrested very easily and thus cause their team despair, or they would contantly force Blufor to kill them, e.g. by running into buildings that Brits are firing in to.

I am of the opinion that civilians have been tried, and they have failed, working on the assumption that these men are unarmed collaborators for the insurgents is much more useful,

e.g. perhaps they should get a long weapon to hit blufor with, with the same kind of reach as a bayonet so that they can fight back against those trying to arrest them.

[billdan]

This would be pointless, because when insurgents die they don't lose tickets anyways. Ever noticed that whenever you look at your tickets as insurgents its always 10's? (70,60,50,etc?)
That is because each cache costs 10 tickets when it is destroyed, but when an insurgent/insurgent vehicle dies, there is no ticket loss. So adding tickets for killing civilians would basically make the game impossible for blufor to win seeing as insurgents don't lose tickets when they die...Ie: 11 tickets left, last cache is destroyed, no more caches left for Blufor to destroy, 1 ticket left, game goes on until Blufor runs out of tickets or the time runs out.

You don't think the number of total number possible cache's can be increased? To say 20-30 caches? If say 20 civis killed by bluefor=10 extra tickets for INS, then the INS would have 80 total tickets. New caches would simply spawn.

Im pretty sure the amount of tickets INS have is related to the amount of caches destroyed, not the amount of caches that can possibly spawn: currently INS can have 10 tickets left but have two caches on the map.

[bloodthirsty_viking]

When an innocent civilian is killed, then yes insurgents should either get a boost or blufor gets a penalty, if the blufor kill a civilian with either the restrainers or shotgun, then its a different story. Isn't this already in game?

This exact idea no, I think the penalty right now is just long spawn times.

. . .
I don't know how good this suggestion would work out. Most important would imo be announcing who killed a civilian so server admins can take action if they have rules against killing civies for no good reason.

ya, thats why i would also want to have the thing at the top announcing X PLAYER KILLED A CIVI.
If someone is just killing civis though, they dont affect the game to much, ill tell more lower in this post.

I once suggested that the blufor lose a ticket for every civi they shoot. But someone said that the civi's would just go jumping off buildings and the BF2 engine couldn't distuingish between the civi being shot and suiciding.


EDIT: Now that you have made me think about it: that's entirely possible..... Hmmmmm

idk about the suiciding, but ya, i see the point. If that could be stoped...

I dont like if the bluefor lose a ticket for every civi killed. If the ins work togeather, the blufor will have a very hard time getting anywhere.

What it is on my suggestion though, every civi dose not add up to a ticket.
10 or so civis add up to a cache. What it means though, is after that first 10 civis get killed, you need to kill another 90 for a new cache =/...

mabey if the first ticket could need 10 and the rest 5? is that possible?


Also, I think this should be added to the Current peneltys.



The only cons i can see really is:

• one person repeatedly killing civis, but a server admin can kick them.
• civi shealds being used arround the caches, but if we can use shotgun to kill them, you can just light up the area with shotguns.
• civis abusing the system by suiciding, if thats how it works

EDIT: wow. ninjad lol =P

This would be pointless, because when insurgents die they don't lose tickets anyways. Ever noticed that whenever you look at your tickets as insurgents its always 10's? (70,60,50,etc?)
That is because each cache costs 10 tickets when it is destroyed, but when an insurgent/insurgent vehicle dies, there is no ticket loss. So adding tickets for killing civilians would basically make the game impossible for blufor to win seeing as insurgents don't lose tickets when they die...Ie: 11 tickets left, last cache is destroyed, no more caches left for Blufor to destroy, 1 ticket left, game goes on until Blufor runs out of tickets or the time runs out.

The game ends when one team losses tickets. If the ins get one more ticket, the game should not end. The only problem is the large amount of civis in between caches is extremely large, but that might be a pro because if someone keeps trying to get killed as a civi, it will take a very long time to add 2 caches.

also, i think i read somewhere that they have over 100 possible cache locations on each map, so i dont think you will ever run out of caches, no matter what happens.

. . .

I fully support this suggestion. It will not make Civis too suicidal than they already are: right now they try to get shot at long range and tend to avoid close range encounters with Bluefor cause of the threat arresting shottys. As long as the arresting capability of Shottys is kept, I don't think the behavior of Civis will change too dramatically. Maybe a little, but the change in Bluefor behavior (taking more caution when engaging) will outweigh the cons. If need be, the respawn time for civis can be increased.

Thank you
Yep, i have seen that aswell, the civis dont get to close, but still tend to die in the middle of the battles =/
but ya, you pretty much understood it like i did

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rudd;1422053']. . .

however previously we were victims of suicide squads of civilians, they would get themselves arrested very easily and thus cause their team despair, or they would contantly force Blufor to kill them, e.g. by running into buildings that Brits are firing in to.
. . . [/quote]

That i have not seen happen for a long time. But this would still happen. With the current system, it dose not affect the game to much if they just go suicide civis (i have done it once or twice myself) =P

Also, like i said, it would be not that many kills on civis for one cache (10 or so) but a large number for the second (50-100 or something like that)

[quote="billdan""]You don't think the number of total number possible cache's can be increased? To say 20-30 caches? If say 20 civis killed by bluefor=10 extra tickets for INS, then the INS would have 80 total tickets. New caches would simply spawn.
. . . [/quote]

ya, but in my idea, 20 dead civis is only 2-3 tickets

[boilerrat]

There are too many civi issues as is along with it being totally unrealistic. But honestly, I would rather lose the civi so we could have a much more useful kit.... like a real medic.

Along with get rid of the shotgun insurgent.

Civilians won't work very much until we can have bots do it, along with players blending in with the bots so that blufor cannot tell who is the enemy... But that has been mentioned as not possible in the past with BF2, so we will have to wait for PR:A's insurgency mode.

[Dev1200]

There are too many civi issues as is along with it being totally unrealistic. But honestly, I would rather lose the civi so we could have a much more useful kit.... like a real medic.

Along with get rid of the shotgun insurgent.

Civilians won't work very much until we can have bots do it, along with players blending in with the bots so that blufor cannot tell who is the enemy... But that has been mentioned as not possible in the past with BF2, so we will have to wait for PR:A's insurgency mode.

Maybe have some sort of very limited medic kit, slower then standard medickits and a limited amount of epipens. And maybe an SKS?

[Foxhound42]

e.g. perhaps they should get a long weapon to hit blufor with, with the same kind of reach as a bayonet so that they can fight back against those trying to arrest them.

If you were a soldier and you walked up to some one and they pulled a knife on you i think you would be justified in shooting them. I don't think giving a civie a knife is a good idea.

[Web_cole]

e.g. perhaps they should get a long weapon to hit blufor with, with the same kind of reach as a bayonet so that they can fight back against those trying to arrest them.

That would mean you'd get actual knife fights facilitated by the game(presuming no one has a shotgun to hand). Awesome, I kick *** at knife fights

[Haji with a Handgun]

I shoot civies a lot, but for me its more of a tactical decision. Most civis are by default, forward observers and medics. For every civi you kill you deny the enemy intelligence and medical treatment. And if the civi is dead, he cant call Arty on your position, he cant tell his teammates where you are, and he cant revive the dead squad next to you. So shooting civies can actually be beneficial, but people do it for the wrong reasons. Its not like there is a local populace, because there are no bots, so you KNOW for certain that every civi you see is an enemy combatant. I agree with Boiler about the civi removal. Its just not useful without bots.

[Spec]

Do you think the Devs have added civilians so you kill them because of a tactical descision?

The concept of the civilian kit is:
A kit that will not be shot, but can't fight, either. An observer.

This only works if the players accept the fact that they are playing a game that simulates an insurgency. That they try and be part of this game, not just play it. In this moment, you should see a civilian, not a player. That's what immersion is, realism is.

By shooting them (unless they are actually attacking you) you break the game rules. You know the Devs didn't want you to shoot, but you still do it. That's like a foul in soccer. It might help your team, but it's not the way the game is meant to be played. Which is why the administrator/referee should punish the players doing it.

Or take airsoft. You could of course just never admit you've been hit when you have been hit and your opponent didn't notice it. That's fun for you maybe, but it's bad for the game in general.

[mat552]

This only works if the players accept the fact that they are playing a game that simulates an insurgency. That they try and be part of this game, not just play it. In this moment, you should see a civilian, not a player. That's what immersion is, realism is.

By shooting them (unless they are actually attacking you) you break the game rules. You know the Devs didn't want you to shoot, but you still do it. That's like a foul in soccer. It might help your team, but it's not the way the game is meant to be played. Which is why the administrator/referee should punish the players doing it.

If the DEVs truly didn't want me to shoot collabs, they wouldn't have rocks, and I wouldn't be able to hurt them. Shooting them is an option, even in real life. I don't go on sprees specifically for collabs anymore, but I certainly don't stay my finger if I get even the slightest feeling that the collab is actively doing my squad or lemming sized group of coalition players harm, I'll fry the ********, and that's that.

Ultimately no amount of roleplaying will account for the certain, bedrock strong knowledge that that supposed "innocent" player has a role within an active insurgency, and is guilty of conspiracy, at least, by willful association.

There is no question of what they do, it's a question of how they're doing it. That is the problem with collaborators in specific and Insurgency in general.

[Spec]

If I was a Dev, I'd have taken the rocks from the kit long ago. It just makes it more annoying and gives the coalition reason to shoot, I agree with that.

But I never had problems just ignoring that I knew more than I was supposed to. It's not that hard really. As I said, compare it to sport. You always have those taking advantage their options even though they violate the - written or unwritten - rules. See the civilians as a challenge you have to overcome in a certain way. It's why they are there. If the Devs wanted you to shoot them, you wouldn't lose points for it. But well, I'm only repeating myself since months :/

And even without any role playing: Imagine you'd be the guy playing the civilian. Would you, if you could, hit a "punish" button like with a teamkill? If yes, you shouldn't have shot. If you'd forgive yourself if you were the one staring at a black screen, then you probably have reason to shoot. Or that's the way I see it.

(If I am a soldier for example and get shot by an enemy soldier, I'd of course "forgive". It's the point of the game. If I however was in my main base at the time, and the flag wasn't available yet, and someone snuck in and shot me, I'd hit "punish".)