Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

[Archerchef]

*insert troll comment that doesn't make any sense

User warned for useless post content. - Darkcloak

[Arc_Shielder]

I agree with this. The current system rewards selfish behavior and disrupts teamwork. It's about time to remove the unknown cache and focus the gameplay to what PR is all about - and hunting caches on a blind, 1 squad only, is not realistic either.

And yes I've read everything so far, and while constructive, none seem like a valid option to me. I just think that the placement of caches should be strongly reviewed before each release so that we don't get impossible caches to phoss (e.g.: caves of Lashkar) or defend (e.g.: Karbala).

Just have in mind that if given the option to get the unknown, the Blufor will go for it regardless of the ticket cost. The teamwork should be the main focus here, instead of suggesting alternatives in the basis of punishment to dissuade the Blufor partially.

As for this:

Caches should only spawn once enough Intel has been gathered to reveal them.

Although as attractive as it may sound, I fail to see how the redundancy of system is any way an improvement to the 1 cache only suggestion. Or how it will make less Insurgents bored or teams less scattered.

[Rudd]

Just want to say, that was an excellent OP feedback post, well reasoned and politely made thanks, I've linked it to our private team section to ensure the team sees it.

[K4on]

Hey cole, what an awesome post.

fully agree with you. the part why it is so boring is so true. and also i like your suggestions to solve the problem. now it is about the devs to think about / to do those changes.

again, great thread!

[Dev1200]

Agree with OP, Long live Insurgency revolution!

[Airsoft]

I like the suggestion in the OP but what are the implications of killing "civies" if there is only 1 known cache?

[Filamu]

You wont get an accurate position on the cache. He proposes that the cache marker starts at 200m range and then moves closer as you get more intel till you get a marker like we have now.

[Hannes_Sbg]

First of all thx to Cole for starting a discussion. I really like all of your ideas.

I will add a suggestion and adress an additional problem:

Capping the Cache
Any posibility to destroy the Cache form distance (Tank, Kiowa, C4 throwing out of a chopper) ruins the gameplay for both sides. Taking a Humwee and driving - kamikaze style - straight to the cache, destroying and dying isnt fun for anyone. Not to mention C4-Humwee or C4-Supply Trucks In terms of realism all of the mentioned ways to destroy a weapon cache are inappropriate.
I think Bluefor should have to secure the area around the cache. Imagin you found a massive weapon cache inside a city. Would you just throw some c4 on it and risk to destroy half of the city by blowing up all the expolsives? Or would you secure the area, load all the stuff on a truck and bring it in a safe place?
How could you implement this in Pr? We know "securing a area" from AAS and the flag system. What would be if Bluefors task is not to take out the cache, but to secure (meaning cap) a small area around the cache? This would prevent Bluefor from any of the above mentioned tactics to destroy it from distance, or by kamikaze attacks.
I would love to get even further. Bluefor loading a weapon cache on a transport truck and getting it to their base would be great. I doubt this could be implemented in Pr:Bf2, but maybe in Pr:ARMA2...


Lack of Squadplay
Cole started with the lacking teamplay in INS mode on Redfor side. I would add that Redfor needs incentives for playing in a squad. I doubt that we will see good teamplay without organised squads. The stimuli for playing in squad missing INS compared to Bluefor are the missing a.) fear of loosing tickets and the missing b.)Kits restrictions.

a.) Im not an expert for real live aysmetrical warfare, but I guess real insurgents have a degree of organisation. Meaning not any dude can go to a weapon cache, pick up the valuable RPG and run away with it. I have no suggestion how to change it, but I would recommend to tweak it.

b.) Intel points are the INS tickets, but since nobody can see how many intel points are left or who has wasted the intel points, nobody seems to care. I would suggest to show the INS the intel points.

Even after these changes the incentives for squadplay wont be even near those for Bluefor, but I guess it could slightly strengthen it.

[rushn]

good ideas the intel one especially

but i think you will need to add something else for intel since once you will find the cache intel will not be important

[Cassius]

I really dont see the problem.

1. 2 caches spawn for a reason, so the insrugents have to manage their forces between the 2 caches. If there is a commander he can order noone to spawn on the known, but if there isnt, and people are sick of the unkowns going down undefended, they shouldnt be raged at for setting up defenses. I even know of a clan that kicks for spawning on the unkown, its their rules, but still... Removing the second unkown would lead to a situation, where you have one team defending all the time, with all its resources and the other team attacking. That does not sound very balanced.

2. You want to keep the fight away from the cache. If insurgents manage to engage a squad in a fight away from the cache its a good thing. Ambushes are a good thing, if you can take a squad in a humvee or even an apc in an ambush thats good. Of course the squads doing this need to be effective and successfull, if they are beaten or bypassed, then the blueforce gets the cache eventually, as they should, no?

You want the only game tactic to be "sit on the cache", I dont think thats how it should be done, nor is it always the best option. Some caches are easily foritified. Other caches are hard to defend once the blueforce gets close, so its best to keep them away. Players get more experienced and then awesome happens, like them setting up effective and credible "fake cache locations" as they react to the blueforce hunting for the unkown.

Your suggestions would reduce the number of viable options, scenarios and tactics. A pitched fight as 60 Players converge on one grid still happens at times albeight not all the time. Enjoy the variety instead.

[sweedensniiperr]

What would be if Bluefors task is not to take out the cache, but to secure (meaning cap) a small area around the cache? This would prevent Bluefor from any of the above mentioned tactics to destroy it from distance, or by kamikaze attacks.

Yes, and for example they would get more tickets by doing that say 40 rather than 25 by destroying it. They can choose.

[spiked_rye]

Capping the Cache
I think Bluefor should have to secure the area around the cache. Imagin you found a massive weapon cache inside a city.

How could you implement this in Pr? We know "securing a area" from AAS and the flag system. What would be if Bluefors task is not to take out the cache, but to secure (meaning cap) a small area around the cache?

I like that idea alot, but could you not have Bluefor have to cap the area before the Cashe becomes destroyable?

Lack of Squadplay
Cole started with the lacking teamplay in INS mode on Redfor side. I would add that Redfor needs incentives for playing in a squad.

I just had a good round as an insurgent, really good teamwork, SL knew what he was doing, everyone was on mumble, we defended several cashes and INS won the round. The one thing I would say was lacking was something for BLUEFOR to defend, say 2 well made and easy to defend checkpoints at road junctions. Give the INS something static to attack, you could maybe have them get intel tickets back like a reverse bleed if both checkpoints are down. Is that possible / a good idea?

[Killer2354]

-snip-
I just had a good round as an insurgent, really good teamwork, SL knew what he was doing, everyone was on mumble, we defended several cashes and INS won the round. The one thing I would say was lacking was something for BLUEFOR to defend, say 2 well made and easy to defend checkpoints at road junctions. Give the INS something static to attack, you could maybe have them get intel tickets back like a reverse bleed if both checkpoints are down. Is that possible / a good idea?

We had a system like that a couple of versions back. It was discarded because both teams were focusing on the flag itself instead of trying to defend/ attack the weapons caches.

[badmojo420]

Capping the Cache

I wrote up a suggestion about exactly that 6 months ago, and it never made the suggestion section, so either it's impossible or the DEVs don't like the idea. If I had to guess, I imagine that the "flags"(cap zones) in BF2 can't be randomly spawned on caches in the middle of a round, rather they all have to be setup at the start of the round. But, that's just my guess.

[Zoddom]

I didnt read all of the first post, but i like the idea of removing the unknown caches, its exactly what i was thinking about some weeks ago!

if we only had one cache at a time, and the next one only appearing when this one has been destroyed, we would have a much more concentrated and teamplay oriented teamplay and rounds may either last much shorter or even longer but with much more action!

[Mikemonster]

I didnt read all of the first post, but i like the idea of removing the unknown caches, its exactly what i was thinking about some weeks ago!

..

That's a resuggestion I think, I couldn't find the original thread though but it was disallowed when I posted the idea.

[Who Dares Wins]

I agree with the suggestion, but my concern (somebody may have already posted this) is that with only a single - focused - objective all of that BLUFOR modern technology is going to come down like a hammer on the Insurgent forces who are going to be extremely hard pressed. I understand this is the point of Insurgency, but when it would pretty much be an 'Attack and Defend' I could see them getting overrun extremely quickly.

[Sneak Attack]

It would be cool if the INS team could set up fake caches that blufor team would see on their map but wouldn't know which one is real or fake. Could make for some good ambushes and to help occupy blufor team away from the real cache for a while until they figured out that they have been fooled. I'm not sure how that could be done without making it obvious that one is fake (because it would randomly show up on their map even though the only cache on their map was the real one moments ago) and one is real.

I think that would help keep things diversified and make it so the entire INS team isn't sitting on one cache making it impossible to get while at the same time keeping the blufor team from wondering about in random buildings around the map looking for unknowns and ending the game before any real fight is put up. It would also help combat INS players spawning stupidly on unknown and giving them away. Because there is no "real" unknown they could spawn at the fake cache without ruining the game like they usually do.

Something needs to be done with civies and intell points too. To often do I get killed by the same player over and over when I am a civi and often when my entire squad is civi we will get killed by a few guys on blufor team over and over and over. Yet it seems to have no effect on how quickly they get intell for the next cache, they can gain points soooooo much faster then we can negate them. I dont want to make it so a couple civies getting killed will rid them of all their points but when an entire squad is killed 6 or 7 times that should hurt them alot more then it seems to.
Alot of blufor players seem to kill anything and rack up the spawn time but they dont care because they can just get up and make food or watch tv during their massive wait time. To stop this from happening I think that when a civi is wrongly killed the player that shot the civi should have their screen go dark for 20 seconds or something like that. It wouldnt kill them but it would put them out of the fight for a while and stop them from repeatedly killing civies and racking up a spawn time that is so long it allows them to do other things while they wait. I know its not the most realistic thing but I think it would work well.

[drs79]

Suggestion -
Add VIP transport mode again
Add a convoy mode - Convoy starts at Point A (Main base) and must travel to Point B (Which is a long distance away).
Lost outpost mode - A Outpost/Compound in the city is the objective for the opfor/ins team to capture/overrun and is first occupied by the US/Brits and must be held. - crates in place to build FOB/Emplacements - Limited time to spawn and then all other players will spawn at US Main where Armor, Air, Logi support assets are.

[Psyrus]

I wrote up a suggestion about exactly that 6 months ago, and it never made the suggestion section, so either it's impossible or the DEVs don't like the idea. If I had to guess, I imagine that the "flags"(cap zones) in BF2 can't be randomly spawned on caches in the middle of a round, rather they all have to be setup at the start of the round. But, that's just my guess.

Since they can already flag a # of players a X distance from the cache (such that spawning off it is disabled), I'm somewhat confident that they could create an invisible, dynamic object spawner with each cache that would damage the cache while the #+X player requirements were filled. So the end result is the same:

- No need for dynamic flags
- You still need to 'cap' the cache

Removing the second unkown would lead to a situation, where you have one team defending all the time, with all its resources and the other team attacking. That does not sound very balanced.

Actually the scenario above seems far more balanced than one team struggling to keep the game going while 0-6 silly people are "giving away" free objectives to the blufor and ending the game prematurely.