New insurgency map idea

[entelin]

I was playing Ramiel today, the map is great, its so detailed the PR team does a great job with cities. However I thought that something was missing eith the overall feel of the game, the map feels like an hour long fragfest with the US utterly kicking *** constantly. It just felt wrong, It took awhile to really get my head around why though. In regards to the US utterly kicking ***, naturally, thats exactly how it should be watch any video of combat in Iraq and it basically looks about the same with the US laying absolute waste to everything in their path.

With one exception.

In real life the USA to a much greater degree than insurgents are very protective of themselves, in comparison to the enemy we really don't loose many people at all. This is to some extent illustrated in the map by the the insurgents inability to set rally points, revive, etc. However this does not cause players on the USA side to be terribly careful, and the dispersed and spontaneous discovery of weapons caches makes it very hard for the insurgents to set traps for the americans, something very common in the war.

So how about this, we take a large map like Ramiel. But then make it so Americans can not respawn(spawning only occurs at the start of the map), increase respawn time on insurgents to mabe 1-3 mins (would take some experimentation). 3ish mins into the map a weapons cache would be reveled (the delay allows the insurgents to get to the cache and get some kind of a defense up. The map then ends in victory for the insurgents when 1/2ish of the americans are dead, or for the USA when that cache is destroyed. The map would be intended to be short and could be played either in a series of 3-4 rounds, or used to break up other maps in the rotation. Generally the map would be tilted in favor of the insurgency, where the USA only gets a victory through good teamwork. I would expect that clans and experienced players would migrate twords the USA side due to the challenge and teamwork aspects, while the less experienced, or short attention span folks would migrate twords the insurgents because of the respawn.

Essentially it becomes a kind of hybrid between the large expansive spaces of BF2 and PR, and the short squad vs squad games like Americas Army. The way the map is setup it would force a decisive and well coordinated street battle, since the enemy does replenish you cant just stay back and snipe to win, you do have to get the job done.

I don't know if doing it exactly like that is possible with the bf2 engine, but this post is mainly intended to start a conversation about the general idea.

[Tannhauser]

Well, TBH, I always wished we could have a game similar to the S&D mode in COD series but in PR. Would make it very quick rounds but players would definitely be more careful and patient, wouldn't they? And to prevent deco/reco, just make it so newcomers during a round have to wait before end of round to play.

[McBumLuv]

Well, the whole problem with that, is that this is a game. None of the same precautions are taken in pr than in rl, so people will get killed. Also, many insurgents are armed civilians with little to no training, where as Invading forces have prepped their armies for several years before going into the war zone.


In pr, teams don't go through such training, and thus are usually evenly matched by skill. If we were to do anything similar to this, we would have to put all the new players in the insurgents side, and all experienced players on the coalition side (which, to be honest, would be pretty cool, not counting its stupidity ).


Until then of course, we can only simulate the insurgents' larger forces and deaths with shorter spawn times, and the coalition's opposites as vice-versa.

[Sanirius]

Like the idea, though I think it would have little succes, for obvious reasons.

Maybe if you put a similar system in PR as in vanilla of gaining experience and ranks. That way you could divide the more experienced people from the noobs.
But then.. How to flush out the impatient trigger-happy folk from the US side?

Sanirius

[McBumLuv]

Heh, I was only joking about that point, because the "n00bs" really need to take part in an experienced squad, and they'll often be more productive with a mic than any one, pub or not, without a mic.

/Offtopic


Back to topic, while I haven't found this through search or AAS, many posts have discussed no spawns, referring mainly to another bf 2 mod, (US Intervention? can't recall) that practiced this with negative effects.

[nick20404]

VIP mode was fun too bad they ditched it.

[CodeRedFox]

VIP mode was fun too bad they ditched it.

We didnt ditch it, more just put it back into the box and had it send pack for repair

[MarshalTecor]

We didnt ditch it, more just put it back into the box and had it send pack for repair

Do i hear a hint at what may be making a reappearance on the next update?
Hope so!

[CodeRedFox]

You'll have to call FEDDB for that.

[dbzao]

don't.

[entelin]

In pr, teams don't go through such training, and thus are usually evenly matched by skill. If we were to do anything similar to this, we would have to put all the new players in the insurgents side, and all experienced players on the coalition side

Team's don't go through heavy training no, despite this its not really uncommon to see some really impressive teamwork from time to time (its moments like that why we play PR isnt it?). Remember also that frequently clans will make their own squads, and they tend to be well organized at least within their own squad. The map would take several iterations of adjustments and revisions to get right. You do tilt the map in favor of the insurgents, so for the USA to win teamwork is required, given this, and especially given the fact that generally the opening of each map is fairly organized I believe the idea can work if the map is incentivized properly. Most maps in PR are already engineered to make success dependent on teamwork, this idea is really only a little different riff on a few other ideas that already exist in PR and other games. It sounds a bit radical only because the BF games have always focused on flags and respawning, but PR has successfully come up with different gameplay already, so I suspect they might be up to the challenge. Considering that we already have some maps perfectly suited to an objective raid style map, it might be worth a shot.

[blackhatch46]

if we want short games, and ultimate realism we should have another mode of gameplay where if you die you are done that round, unless of course you are revived. i think that would be cool for short games and would make players value their life more. kinda like irl.

[entelin]

yeah it would have to be a new mode of play for sure.

[KEIOS]

Think about it:

If a player dies at the beginning of the round, he must wait maybe an hour, until he gets back to play? That would empty every server in no time..

It would make more sense to reduce respawntimes for the Insurgents, so they could attack more aggressively.

Or another option would be, to unbalance the teams, so that on a 64 map 40 would be insurgents and 24 would be USMC.

[blackhatch46]

Think about it:

If a player dies at the beginning of the round, he must wait maybe an hour, until he gets back to play? That would empty every server in no time..

It would make more sense to reduce respawntimes for the Insurgents, so they could attack more aggressively.

Or another option would be, to unbalance the teams, so that on a 64 map 40 would be insurgents and 24 would be USMC.

yea i have suggested that too. the whole unbalanced teams thing that is

[gazzthompson]

tickets represent people in game for larger battles, team having more tickets have more men ect

[Psyko]

a nice consept. in CoD4 its called search and destroy. you get killed and you got to watch the game play out through the eyes of another player. With the BF2 engine there are a couple of things that would hinder this.

It takes ages for most people to load a map. and if the round lasted less than ten minutes it would become tedious. even if you were to program it to do quick restarts, that would cause bugs.

secondly. What happens when the player dies, he has to watch the crane-view screen until everyone is dead. or he has to sit with a blank screen talking on voip disrupting the survivors.

theoretically, these issues could be dealth with. But i can imagine that in the long run, a PR S&D gamemode would not work out as well as expected. It would damage the economics of the servers. even right now, the C&S mode is hardly ever played. not because server admins dont put it on the servers, but because players favour AAS and insurgency more.

this is all my own opinion btw other people might have different opinions. BTW, its a little off topic, but i would love to see C&S mode be a little more popular.

[entelin]

If a player dies at the beginning of the round, he must wait maybe an hour, until he gets back to play? That would empty every server in no time..

Only the US side, and it wouldn't take an hour because you don't wait for everyone to die, you wait until 1/3 or 1/2 are dead because at that point we can say the battle has been decided. So the map would essentially result in one really strong firefight, and then the map would be over.

I agree that BF2 is not really designed for this mode of play and waiting for the game to start would be a pain. But hey, these are PR players we are talking about, you know, the ones that wait 15 mins for a tank, or wind up walking through the desert for 5-10 mins because they were abandoned somewhere and don't want to kill themselves. We don't play PR because we love driving across the map to get somewhere, or because we love waiting for 60 seconds to respawn, or waiting long stretches of time defending an objective just in case the enemy happens to attack it. No we play because when something does finally happen it has a chance of being *REALLY* cool. So if we can make a mode of play that increases the chance of a big organized fight occurring, a moment that you'll really remember, then I suspect people will have the patience for the map to load.

Or another option would be, to unbalance the teams, so that on a 64 map 40 would be insurgents and 24 would be USMC.

That would certainly help the existing maps as is if bf2 allows for it.

[badmojo420]

So basically, you want them to change the US tickets to the number of players or a bit less. And make everyones re-spawn time 9999999? I'll bet the insurgents win every round. Maybe put 95% of the people onto the US team and you'd have something.

[entelin]

I think thats a bit of a jump and makes a lot of assumptions that whoever made the map does the worst job possible. Obviously it will take some trial and error. The reason you allow the insurgents to respawn is because if you didn't the US would be incentivised to sit on their *** instead of making the intended assault on the target. Your also assuming that the insurgents would get to spawn right on top of the objective, which would be equally dumb because it would incentivise the insurgents to play the game as if they were playing a deathmatch in doom.

The intent would be that the US assaults the objective in an organized fashion, and follows it through rapidly into the objective. If they fail to do this insugents will be able to repopulate their defensive lines and cause the US enouph casualties to loose the map.

The US winning is hardly difficult to imagine considering they would likely get at least one stryker, tank, choppers, marksmen kits, and humvees. Just look at the kill ratio in many insurgent maps. Generally if the US wants a position, they get it, unless they have their head up their ***.

All maps take some thought to balance, this mode of play would certainly be no different.