Release Iraqi Insurgency mode is not fun :/

[StevePl4y5]

This might sound a bit crazy, but what about a civilian kit, with a small weapon (pistol or smg), that's follows under the ROE until he pulls out his weapon. And after pulling the weapon, he'll be considered a combatant until he respawns. I kinda like the idea of going around a map as a BLUFOR looking for caches (that should be visible from the beginning of the match, with less accurate intel markers, that you actually have to look for) with civilians everywhere that could be, or not, armed.

I kinda think, first there should be multiple civilian models, like 3 or so. And all kits should have an unarmed slot by default, and while in that slot, players are considered civilians, and then my previous "idea" applies. I think this would be cool for the Iraqi insurgency, or maybe a completely new Insurgent faction all together.

[fatalsushi83]

I love playing as the insurgents and support decisions to make insurgency more balanced and enjoyable but I really don't understand why people are starting to complain about this game mode again.

I understand why people complained a while ago when we had the one shot kill bug and bugged insurgent mortars. But ever since the devs fixed that, insurgents have been winning most rounds (the devs have tools to monitor stats so please don't question them about "where they get their information from"). And even though insurgents have more primitive weapons, they can be incredibly effective and fun if you use them correctly (MG and SPG technicals as well as mortars are absolutely devastating in the right hands). Also, from my experience as an insurgent squad leader, it's not that difficult to lead well-organized squads, get positive kill counts, and have lots of fun doing it.

Seriously, if you're having trouble playing as insurgents - whether it's because you can't lead organized squads or are frustrated by the kill/death ratio - tell me on this thread and I'll be happy to give you advice.

[Psyrus]

Nothing was mentioned of where the stats come from; nor does win rate tell everything about the story.

It's hard to tell by win rate of a team when there is very little indication of individual skill level; teams might simply be stacked for one side or the other.

From the detailed analysis of over 10,000 rounds of PR. The stats have enough bulk that statistical anomalies like that shouldn't be considered.

And to (possibly) answer your next question, no, we don't make the stats public.

Seriously, if you're having trouble playing as insurgents - whether it's because you can't lead organized squads or are frustrated by the kill/death ratio - tell me on this thread and I'll be happy to give you advice.

Very true. That being said, if people have real suggestions for improving the gameplay that fall beyond "Revert XYZ change that I don't particularly like" and come up with something unique, throw it in a suggestion thread with a detailed description and it will most certainly be considered.

[ComradeHX]

Psyrus;2017288']From the detailed analysis of over 10,000 rounds of PR. The stats have enough bulk that statistical anomalies like that shouldn't be considered.

And to (possibly) answer your next question, no, we don't make the stats public.

Assuming those stats exist and is only kept out of public eye to avoid causing too much confusion/(insert generic excuse here).

You could tell what and how stats are being analyzed.

[Mineral]

We track all server data. round duration, tickets, teams, maps, layouts, playercount, dates,...

If we can say that our stats show that most insurgency layouts are balanced right now then you simply take our word for it No reason to argue about it. We have no reason to lie or whatever you guys are guessing. These stats don't show whether insurgency is fun, which is the title of this topic. But the balance is there. So now stop discussing the balance of it but discuss whether it is fun and how we can possibly change it up for even more fun

[ComradeHX]

We track all server data. round duration, tickets, teams, maps, layouts, playercount, dates,...

If we can say that our stats show that most insurgency layouts are balanced right now then you simply take our word for it No reason to argue about it. We have no reason to lie or whatever you guys are guessing. These stats don't show whether insurgency is fun, which is the title of this topic. But the balance is there. So now stop discussing the balance of it but discuss whether it is fun and how we can possibly change it up for even more fun

And teamwork score? I don't suppose civi martyr/arrest is tracked?

Discussion of more fun has been done; and suggestions posted everywhere.

What I needed to know is how much v1.2 changed balance.

Psyrus;2017288']
Very true. That being said, if people have real suggestions for improving the gameplay that fall beyond "Revert XYZ change that was overly harsh in penalizing INS and implemented WITHOUT proper testing" and come up with something unique, throw it in a suggestion thread with a detailed description and it will most certainly be considered.

fixed

Suggestion threads are pointless when it's buried in many random threads in suggestions section just for devs to ignore.

[Rabbit]

We don't ignore these things, if it is a popular topic we make a thread in our section for it, discuss it, and if someone has time, makes the changes once its generally agreed on.

Stop complaining about a FREE game made by Developers who actually respond to you and on their SPAREput out more and larger changes than a lot of actual companies that do this for a living.

[ComradeHX]

Rabbit;2017352']We don't ignore these things, if it is a popular topic we make a thread in our section for it, discuss it, and if someone has time, makes the changes once its generally agreed on.

Stop complaining about a FREE game made by Developers who actually respond to you and on their SPAREput out more and larger changes than a lot of actual companies that do this for a living.

First of all; you missed the point(and title) of this thread.

I'm not complaining about the mod; just the 1.2 patch.

If DEVs posted a changelog beforehand and asked about whether all that stuff should be in the patch; most people would probably agree that bypassing gamespy is enough.

[Mineral]

If DEVs posted a changelog beforehand and asked about whether all that stuff should be in the patch; most people would probably agree that bypassing gamespy is enough.

Too bad it's still the team making the mod and therefore deciding what goes in and what doesn't. Not you.

What I needed to know is how much v1.2 changed balance.
fixed

v1.2's new maps are mixed balanced. Artic lion is the most balanced map in PR. Not sure about the others, don't remember. But maps as hades peak have recieved balancing changes for next release.

Insurgency became more balanced with 1.2 on about 60% of the maps last I checked. But no major changes. Neither were those expected. This might be a coincidence though. It's not that the version has been out that long so the numbers may change in coming weeks.

Discussion of more fun has been done; and suggestions posted everywhere.

Suggestion threads are pointless when it's buried in many random threads in suggestions section just for devs to ignore.

Now i'd like you to stay on topic so we can stay too. Discuss fun. FUN. This thread is really 0% about the balance of the gamemode. it's not up to you if this thread has enough suggestions and discussion for you to start spamming about other things.

[Truism]

The deep irony is, and I've said this before, EVERY ROUND IS WINNABLE BY INSURGENTS. If PR had a more competitive playerbase (like, say, DotA), Insurgents would win every single round. The game mode is actually completely unwinnable no matter how good Coalition is against a competent, organised Insurgent team that wants to win badly.

There are two problems right now with Insurgency. The first one is that the cache/intel system is designed in a way that strongly encourages kill farming against the Insurgents. This is different from, say AAS where killing is one way of winning and is common, but can be a byproduct of another strategy. In Insurgency, you cannot win as Blufor without farming kills - the kills need not have any tactical or strategic relevance, so there's a big incentive for Blufor to do things like camp AFVs in irrelevant places and just shut down an irrelevant section of the map to farm kills without risk of dying - in turn, Insurgents don't have tools to deal with that since their counters to all of Blufor's superior assets are based on the defender's advantage where their shorter range and less potent weapons can be at least marginally effective.

The second flaw is a byproduct of the one mentioned above. If Insurgents don't let Blufor kill them, they can win every single game. Every single Insurgency game could be won by Insurgents if the team had the willpower not to leave their dome of death. In fact, everything that Insurgents do after leaving their base could be seen as detrimental to winning. The game mode is entirely predicated on Insurgents being cannon fodder for Coalition and indeed that's how Coalition has to play it to win it.

[Anderson29]

Everything you said is correct truism but I wouldn't say that they are flaws, that is just the way it is. If they(opfor) didnt fight then they are not insurgents and everyone lives happily ever after. I have a blast playing iraqi insurgency...its my favorite.

[Rabbit]

so there's a big incentive for Blufor to do things like camp AFVs in irrelevant places and just shut down an irrelevant section of the map to farm kills without risk of dying

This is actually currently being worked on by [R-CON]Mats391, I wont go into detail about it though, as its his work and a WIP currently as changes are still an open discussion.

[Frontliner]

The first one is that the cache/intel system is designed in a way that strongly encourages kill farming against the Insurgents. This is different from, say AAS where killing is one way of winning and is common, but can be a byproduct of another strategy. In Insurgency, you cannot win as Blufor without farming kills - the kills need not have any tactical or strategic relevance, so there's a big incentive for Blufor to do things like camp AFVs in irrelevant places and just shut down an irrelevant section of the map to farm kills without risk of dying - in turn, Insurgents don't have tools to deal with that since their counters to all of Blufor's superior assets are based on the defender's advantage where their shorter range and less potent weapons can be at least marginally effective.

I've been saying that this needs to be addressed since the start of 1.0. Insurgency used to be much more fun when you had to check every house to make sure whether there's a cache or not(given at least one being unknown to BluFor). This cat and mouse play is gone completely, as is the surprise factor and a lot of the tension(everybody and their mother is now guarding the known cache these days). On the other side, what I loved to do as insurgent was to fake cache locations by having a position of non-interest defended heavily. BluFor couldn't know whether or not there was something in there, so they took the bait more often than not. I know there were issues with people ghosting the cache, but tbh, what's hindering players to do that? I mean, yeah, the cache is not physically there, but you could have 2 guys camping the location until it's known. To put this in a nutshell, the team sacrificed elements that gave an unique feel to insurgency and in return made ghosters wait a few minutes until the unknown becomes known.

Not to mention that unknown caches don't spawn special kits for insurgents, so in case of approaching armour, the insurgents have only one spot to request proper equipment from. I don't want to be snappy, but does nobody in the dev team acknowledge how this is causing tunnel vision on both sides? The main benefactor of this is obviously BluFor armour, if they keep their awareness on the rough cache area, they've got the entire hostile infantry handheld AT-capability under lockdown. The only other threats to BluFor armour are then SPG emplacements, the SPG techie(which can be heard from afar, not to mention that both of the aforementioned have to score 2 hits to destroy an APC) and mines. None of these pose a significant threat to stationary BluFor armour in an open position. Which then starts killing both insurgents and fun from afar, unable to be killed.

The second flaw is a byproduct of the one mentioned above. If Insurgents don't let Blufor kill them, they can win every single game. Every single Insurgency game could be won by Insurgents if the team had the willpower not to leave their dome of death. In fact, everything that Insurgents do after leaving their base could be seen as detrimental to winning. The game mode is entirely predicated on Insurgents being cannon fodder for Coalition and indeed that's how Coalition has to play it to win it.

A strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.


If you want to afk for 4 hours just so you can have your win, go ahead, but I won't take part in it.

[Beee8190]

Last night playing Korengal as an INS I faced another very frustrating experience which is not specific to Iraqi insurgency but INS as a whole

As an combat engineer I managed to place both TNT based IED's on the each side of the road not too far from german main base. I chose the location for its rather narrow pass through which was further reinforced with walls on its sides for maximum explosion effect.

With the Puma approaching my ambush spot I've detonated both IED's with them sitting just 2 or 3 meters away. The explosion merely scratched their paint but from there on they were very cautious to the point they sat at the same spot for far too long and this is where my feedback comes down to

I snuck up on the Puma sitting at the same spot for the last 40 minutes and to my surprise I've noticed another insurgent trying to disrupt the APC by knifing its tracks rofl, so I kindly ask him to go away as I was digging another TNT IED, this time right under their tracks.

Great effort you would think right? Well yes but all that effort have been entirely useless since the crew sitting inside 2 inch thick armor with its ground shaking engine can hear the shovel sounds inside, moving forward and shooting me as I'm burying the IED


TL;DR - Burying an IED close to an enemy armored vehicle sets the crew on alert as they can hear the shoveling sounds

[Naethanyl]

I'm going to go out and state that while there are many worthwhile additions to this patch, the iraqi insurgency gamemode is unplayable, with literally all advantages in the hands of BLUFOR, and the game mode has become a forgone conclusion in most regards with a BLUFOR victory.

The only means by which we had to counter an almost certain victory against a foe with armored assets (which often have thermals), better weapons (with optics) and was to use martyrdom in the form of human shields and bleeding out, which prevented the enemy from acquiring intel in a rapid fashion, or claustrophobic engagements at extreme close quarters. Even then, BLUFOR still has the advantage in most respects, making the game experience for anyone playing Iraqi INS a tangible hell.

The game itself, in a need to enforce some arbitrary "balance" completely disregards actual, real life military engagements with paramilitaries and insurgents, which do exploit rules of engagement with the use of human shields and dumping their weapons so as to avoid suspicion.

Now most people would state "Well, its all about teamwork, now!"

Well, the nature of insurgency often allows greater independence from the squad, and often times, insurgency maps often give way to freeform engagements. Besides, most times, any group of armed iraqi insurgents travelling together in a squad is no match for the same number of BLUFOR Troops due to optics, weapons and squad composition.

Most people would also state "Its all about ambushes now!"

Well, most ambushes are impossible, considering that cache defense (which are often placed in remote, indefensible places with little too few chokepoints or hard cover) is required, and all an APC has to do is to thermal+HEAT+zoomx3 anything in its path from over 500 meters away, allowing infantry to sweep in and take an objective. This of course, isn't even covering the retarded lack of static defenses or deployable assets iraqi INS (I'm looking at you, mortar pit) has or how weird hideouts work in regards to enemy proximity. This leaves only the tight quarters of urban environments fo iraqi insurgents to remotely even have a chance.

That's my opinion, formed from playing this game for a number of years now. Think of it what you will.

[tankninja1]

Actually Iraqi Insurgents are slightly better in 1.2 than 1.1 mostly because the almighty arty ied is back on some maps, Basrah and Ramiel. Too bad most players don't realize the power of the arty ied, which is mislabeled as the large TNT ied.

I think insurgency could be improved if ied kits were reworked to be like they were back in .98. The ability to have two different strings of ieds is really helpful. Also I dislike the ieds that look like they are buried. It is fine for the pressure plate ied because the pressure plate ieds looks like a long strip but for the rest of the ieds it looks off. Also it would be nice to reduce the planty time for mortar/mine ieds since on 1km and 2km maps with 50 BLUFOR there are random guys all over the map and it is impossible to create good ied coverage around targets, like a bridge or a field that gives BLUFOR armor a good view of a cashe.

[=MeRk= Morbo5131]

My main complaint with insurgency ties into other issues I have with the game as it has been since 1.0. The OP went into most of it so I'll be brief:
Too many BLUFOR heavy assets/ridiculously quick respawn rate of assets
Deviation gives scope users a massive advantage
Said advantages encourage BLUFOR switching - Literally every map where it's mostly scopes vs. no scopes, I see at least 10 people try to teamswitch.
Cache markers too accurate

[Mikemonster]

SL'ing in Ins is hard because you have so LITTLE to work with. With the changes to 1.0 you can't even play as a 'medic/spotter squad leader' as you can't choose the collaborator kit, which is ideal to simulate a real cell leader. You are relegated to being another AK-47 simpleton but with the ability to place hideouts.

This causes a real lack of mobility for the Insurgents, even when playing as a real team squad. The SL can't see with his eyes what is going on as he can no longer rope onto a roof and (with relative invulnerability) have a look to see what's going on. This was one of the best and most unique things about the original Insurgency - The Collaborator SL was just a great idea for teamwork and assymetric balance.

To add insult to injury the Collab kit was made harder to get and use due to to 'civvy spam'. Why not just keep it as an SL only kit, which would mean the majority of users would be using it correctly.

Currently the SL kit feels like a common or garden rifleman kit, why not use the Alt position as a Collaborator one instead of the AK?