Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

[illidur]

Maybe the timer between getting the intel and the cache showing up for blufor should be lowered or removed to compliment this change.

I suspect this is the reason the next cache is always 5 minutes after the first, you are getting enough intel but you still have to wait for the cache to go blue.

correct, but i think we should keep the 5 minutes. its the time opfor get to travel to defend the real one if blufor haven't found its location yet. helicopters are fast

[Alpha.s9]

correct, but i think we should keep the 5 minutes. its the time opfor get to travel to defend the real one if blufor haven't found its location yet. helicopters are fast

Well basically my point is that if every cache is giving up enough intel for the next one, we might want to look at the intel points required to reveal a cache. The way it is now it sounds like you could just put a 5 minute timer between blowing up the known and getting the marker for the next cache and get the same result.

Removing the timer between getting enough intel and getting a cache marker might make it easier to find a more balanced intel point "ratio", making the intel system a bigger part of insurgency than it apparently is now.

I guess the big question is whether or not we want one cache after another available for blufor to assault or if they should have to work a little harder to get the intel needed, thus "decentralizing" blufor during the times between cache markers as they attempt to gather enough intel to get a cache location.

[ytman]

INS needs a major reworking overall. I haven't gotten enough time with it yet but I think the current one cache test is a good interim.

[Alpha.s9]

INS needs a major reworking overall. I haven't gotten enough time with it yet but I think the current one cache test is a good interim.

I agree. I'm hoping these tests will spur some good conversation about INS changes, and possibly lead to that overhaul.

[fabioxxxx]

seeing pr dev cast and dev posts ... pr seems to be all about blufor...now even in close range they will have more advantage with the new scope system...
i would like to see a dev cast with the optimizations for the insurgency layer XP...

[SShadowFox]

Play as Insurgents have been meant to play as, that's how you win a round playing as Insurgent.

But people insist on facing the enemy, instead of making ambushes, so you'll never win that way because the enemy will have options for both close and distant combat in a single weapon.

[Pronck]

Play as Insurgents have been meant to play as, that's how you win a round playing as Insurgent.

But people insist on facing the enemy, instead of making ambushes, so you'll never win that way because the enemy will have options for both close and distant combat in a single weapon.

With the current maps, glitches and vehicles ambushes can't prevent them from winning due to C4 rushers and other flaws in the game. I can't remember how many times we made a fortress and we still lost the cache due to a suicide C4 rush. The new IEDs might be a solution but from what I saw on the videos they can be easily spotted from a distance.

What I also like to see is to have the insurgents on the attacking side like I explained in my suggestion called "clear, secure, control."

[SShadowFox]

IEDs would be deadlier if their "placed" model was of a buried mine, showing only the top of it, just like in FH2.

I almost didn't got a LAV on Fallujah because the driver saw it, but as he was extremely smart, he passed beside the IED and I detonated it.

[ComradeHX]

Play as Insurgents have been meant to play as, that's how you win a round playing as Insurgent.

But people insist on facing the enemy, instead of making ambushes, so you'll never win that way because the enemy will have options for both close and distant combat in a single weapon.

Does not help when BluFor is ghosting or just lucky in finding a cache on the other end of map from where you set up ambush.

[Web_cole]

seeing pr dev cast and dev posts ... pr seems to be all about blufor...now even in close range they will have more advantage with the new scope system...

Its utterly pointless to discuss "balance" in Insurgency when the gamemode is not Working as Intended. When Ins teams start caring about the objectives - the caches- more than chasing after Blufors for hundreds upon hundreds of meters, then a Balance Discussion makes sense.

[Pronck]

Its utterly pointless to discuss "balance" in Insurgency when the gamemode is not Working as Intended. When Ins teams start caring about the objectives - the caches- more than chasing after Blufors for hundreds upon hundreds of meters, then a Balance Discussion makes sense.

You cannot avoid the balance issue cause there are some morons not playing how it should be, there are many playing as it should. A balance issue does make sense because it needs to become more of a challenge to the BLUFOR, as of now only Gaza, Korengal and sometimes Lashkar are challenging maps the others are pretty easy tbh.

[Web_cole]

You cannot avoid the balance issue cause there are some morons not playing how it should be, there are many playing as it should. A balance issue does make sense because it needs to become more of a challenge to the BLUFOR, as of now only Gaza, Korengal and sometimes Lashkar are challenging maps the others are pretty easy tbh.

We're not talking about "some morons", its very rare that an Insurgent team plays optimally or even kind of half decent.

If you compare tournament or clan skrim AAS games to public, there is not a large discrepancy in the levels of play.

Conversely, if you compare tournament or clan skrim Insurgency games to public, there is a huge discrepancy. Because in a clan game people are willing to do anything it takes to win, which in this case is sitting around the caches defending with most of the team for the whole game. In a public game, most of the team is chasing Blufors all over the map willy nilly with little if any consideration for the objectives, because it is deemed (not unreasonably) "boring" to defend them.

How is it possible to balance a gamemode where the mechanical objectives of said gamemode are treated as a near irrelevance by half of the players in the game?

A handful of people defending the known cache.

Its not.

[Pronck]

Alright let's make it like this Web_Cole, I just want that the insurgents don't becomes the faction that everyone hates due to the fact that BLUFOR keeps getting toys. It will imbalance a lot of things if the insurgents don't get a counterpart to certain BLUFOR toys. I don't care if we got half the team chasing the enemy, I just don't want to make it a walk in the park for BLUFOR.

And the part that Insurgency means less teamwork is due to the AAS lovers (as I call them) that go retard mode on INS and by that influence the servers playerbase. It can't just be that when Fallujah is played after a fun round of Silent Eagle that everyone becomes retarded. It's just certain players who go fully retard and start influencing other people because they actually rather play AAS.

[Henrique_Dalben]

It's just certain players who go fully retard and start influencing other people because they actually rather play AAS.

This. I lost track of how many times i've seen entire clans disconnecting because they'd play as insurgents.

[Truism]

The problem can be construed as a balance one and can be expressed in empirical terms.

In a 3 hour match with 11 caches, Blufor would need to destroy one cache every 16 minutes. With 300 tickets and no bonuses for caches they could afford to spend 27 tickets per cache. Assuming an average ambush kills two people with a 50/50 chance of getting a vehicle, an insurgent team playing "properly" and avoiding confrontation in favour of ambushes needs to have around 3 successful ambushes per cache to maintain ticket pressure on Blufor.


To remain within time constraints without cheating, the US needs to locate the area of the cache (variable = intel requirement and intel gathering actions), establish local superiority (variable = terrain, asset availability, asset employment) and destroy the cache within 16 minutes. You can deconstruct these actions to work out the plausibility/likelihood of achieving that. Shortcuts like attack by fire or C4ing should be removed to force the use of standard balance variables.

If you view insy as a sound concept in its current form, then the balance problems that arise within it are very simple to modify until the mode is balanced. I really don't think it is a sound concept though. Insurgents are fundamentally attackers more often than defenders in the places we've been fighting.

[Pronck]

*ugh* Clear, Secure, Control *ugh* . This could spice things up. Anyway, I would like to know the changes that the devs have made for 1.0

[Vicious302]

1. Change Unknown Symbol, It's the same as a defend symbol, though it should NOT be defended. This is confusing to new players and break the universal visual language.

2. Increase Intel Aquirement time to 10 minutes vs. the current 5. In real life and in game world, 5 minutes is just too short.

3. Remove Unknown Spawn. NO ONE NEEDS TO SPAWN THERE, EVER.

4. Make Unknown Intel only available to Opfor commander to pass out to one squad for hideout building in the area, IED placement, and/or nessecary ammo replenishment. IF ANYONE NEEDS TO GO THERE IT SHOULD BE WITH COMMANDER PERMISSION AND CORDINATION.

5. Add more rounstart, ramiel style spawn points.

[K4on]

Fully agree with what Web_Cole said.

On the other hand I also agree, that playing as a Cache Defender Insurgent can be boring from time to time, while bluefor is going for the other cache or doing "other" things.

For 1.0 we have already done some changes, which will hopefully make the Insurgent gameplay a bit more intresting as it is now.

[Vicious302]

The awnser is simple, if they don't want to play the way the game is meant, make it much harder. IE, everything I said, lol. It doesn't really serve to say that's not the way the mechanics are meant to be played when the DEVs have allowed you to spawn on unknowns when really there is no reason.

[fabioxxxx]

Cool [R-DEV]K4on, i will be looking forward to it.

i am tired of having great battles ruined by the unknown hunt ... playing as blufor or insurgent... Like defending one known cache for the entire match to have 4 unknowns destroyed by ghosting ... this really sucks.