Page 7 of 8

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-24 07:33
by DDS
First time I have seen this thread. Brilliant ideas web cole. I hope the DEV's have some needed changes in 1.0

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-24 08:45
by Lange
Agree as DDS stated, some real good ideas here, and had a few to add myself.

Having no unknowns at all may make the team too focused on one spot and clusterup the team or encourage too much needless sacrifice and ticket waste. Part of insurgency I thought was trying different methods for a heavily defended cache. If one cache is too defended to get it would just deteminent the blu for with a lot of ticket loss. One possible idea could be to have more frequent area attacks of artillery or mortar like every 30 min to "damage" the cache but not destroy, and give the insurgents a mortar protection asset to counter somewhat.

Also maybe having 1 unknown on the map could be useful as well but no more, also thinking about the number of caches total to destroy for blu for may help.

I thought about maybe destroying 6 to win, but a total of 8 are on the map, leaving 1 or so unknown giving some room to still hunt for unknowns as a gameplay mechanic, but not near the way it is now.

Love the idea of increasing intel, the way it is now is pretty cut and dry and less rewarding.

Or instead of unknowns another idea might be to have a big "generalized" icon over another possible cache in one part of the map from additional intel while a known is up or having this plus 1 unknown spawned at one time so only 3 caches on a map possible at one time. And this area only increases intel after the current known is destroyed.

Just some ways to break up the gameplay on the map and not have a big 32 player vs single cache deal because too much defense and too much attack in one spot causes alot of chaos and heavily losses and unrealistic for death tolls.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-24 16:45
by =-=kittykiller
no unknowns
up to 2 knowns ( we dont want all blufor armour converging on one spot)
if cache defended for 45 minutes
blufor wins tickets for destroyed cache looses an equal amount if defended
kits available at MAIN , CACHE and AMMO TECHIE

lastly i still want this game to be about reducing the enemies tickets to zero a clear win lose situation

this last point is i feel key who cares if we wait the round out and win as ins, no one.

insurgents are supposed to have fun being sneaky, making ambushes trapping areas. like when we had all channel mumble that was fun. defending caches should be encouraged as a good way to get involved and taste action

blufor need to make TEAM decisions that is their mentality and dictat!. they need to be encouraged to think as a team and have a pressure to attack.

we must endevour to keep this gamemode simple too many rules are ugly . 45 mins to defend cache, 5 mins to move it.

we need to open up the maps not close them down as one cache would do.

In conclusion, this gamemode lack identity. It needs to be fun and playable not a mess of rules and timers that has to learn. For example the best thing that ever happened was removing the silly civi rules now he cant be shot if he doesnt use medic or drive.
more of this less of the lets make it all about killing insurgents at one single point on the map, less of the well a win is still a win a timeout win is nothing its nothing to anyone involved, no one cares.
Blufor smash the caches or loose all the tickets trying THATS whats i want. i hope some one agrees sorry for all the text.


also civi costs 1 ticket and 10 intelI think more than anyother game mode insurgency should be a fun public game

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-24 21:42
by waldov
Yeah that's not a bad idea actually though civis shouldn't cost a ticket. Personally As much as i love insurgency i think we just need another non conventional game mode like that command and control game-mode that was suggested that way we can have something else to compliment insurgency.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-25 09:54
by =-=kittykiller
this game
needs to
be fun
and sim
ple. Pinb
all has 10
million
points
but ins
often has
no point.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-25 16:46
by Pronck
Kittykiller could you do us a favor and make complete and good-looking sentences as of now it looks like a message from someone with ADD.

The suggestion to move a cache and declare is as "lost" looks a great idea to me, it will probably make sure the rounds are less boring than now.

Now the thing with civilians, it is partly broken. One of the thing is, that it is now tool to annoy the BLUFOR by doing suicide acts such as running into mortar fire with six civilians at a time. Or jump in the back of a fake gary with a whole civilian squad and drive up to tank so the gunner finds out that he killed half a team of civilians.

Requesting the "basic" kits from caches would be quite nice since as of now it is in some cases very hard to build an hideout when there is no civilian or squad leader-kit around.

What could be something to consider is giving flags to the BLUFOR once they have failed to get 2 or 3 caches in a row, this to make them the defending side and let the insurgents attack.

And for Waldov maybe my suggestion called "clear,secure, control" is something for you to look at?

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-26 14:45
by =-=kittykiller
[QUOTE=B.Pronk(NL);1888726
Now the thing with civilians, it is partly broken. One of the thing is, that it is now tool to annoy the BLUFOR by doing suicide acts such as running into mortar fire with six civilians at a time. Or jump in the back of a fake gary with a whole civilian squad and drive up to tank so the gunner finds out that he killed half a team of civilians.

?[/QUOTE]

remove fake gary

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-26 17:44
by Darman1138
B.Pronk(NL) wrote:Kittykiller could you do us a favor and make complete and good-looking sentences as of now it looks like a message from someone with ADD.
What if he has ADD dude? Not cool man....not cool...

:P

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-27 16:54
by Pronck
Darman1138 wrote:What if he has ADD dude? Not cool man....not cool...

:P
Well I guess he still understood the message.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-27 23:17
by 007.SirBond
One Cache only please. I agree with everything the OP wrote. In my opinion when BluFor kills a certain number of Civilians, the insurgents should gain a cache. This makes sense as when more and more unarmed combatants are killed, it rallies and angers the locals who will join up in the insurgency and the neighboring regions will assist in helping bring weapons to the conflicting region.

This is realistic, as groups like Hamas uses this tactic everyday making big stories and broadcasts about the dead unarmed civilians killed by the IDF to rally other extremist Muslims outside of Israel to further aid the insurgents in Gaza and the West Bank with weapons and bombs.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-04-28 03:12
by doop-de-doo
=-=kittykiller wrote:kits available at MAIN , CACHE and AMMO TECHIE
Does weapons cache mean anything to you?

I don't think insurgents should have a main at all. They should have spawn points that spawn around the cache at random locations (as it's usually the locals who use them anyway). I'll post this up as a suggestion for the censors.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-18 12:56
by Rabbit
Okay, Here is my idea.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, its a huge hit to even lose a Humvee/MRAP, let alone an APC or tank. So here are some changes I have considered.

GPO Changes
Trans aircraft 40min respawn
Attack aircraft 1 hour

Tanks no No respawn or atleast 1 hour
APC/IFV No respawn or 30 min

Caches

Add a RKG-3 pickup kit, only a rock, 1 RKG-3 and med patch.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-18 13:13
by Pronck
Why not give the RKG kit a skorpion for personal defense? Or something like a Uzi.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-18 13:16
by Rabbit
B.Pronk(NL) wrote:Why not give the RKG kit a skorpion for personal defense? Or something like a Uzi.
Well usually when you get hit by them, its by some guy standing on the side of the road no other weapons. Also, at least in my opinion, not having a weapon helps keep it as an ambush kit and not an assault kit.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-18 19:57
by SIDEKILL3R
Web_cole wrote:(There are a bunch of threads similar to this about the Insurgency gamemode, I believe this one is different enough but I guess that's up to the Mods to decide.)

Wall of text incoming ;)

One of the key innovations of PR has always been using game mechanics to influence player behaviour and to solve perceived "problems" with player psychology. In some cases it is used as a hard barrier, for instance you literally cannot crew a tank with any effectiveness unless you have 2 people working together. In other cases it is used as more of an encouragement, e.g. the rally point mechanic where players would be advised to stick close to their SLs if they want to get back in the fight quickly (more so in previous versions of PR).

I would say that the Insurgency game mode as it stands has large over arching issues with how players act and think, and Insurgency maps often play out very messily. There is an overall lack of focus; it seems fairly obvious that the game is supposed to play out with the Insurgent team largely defending the known cache, and the Blufor team largely attacking it. Obviously there can be some scope for disruption tactics for Ins, and perhaps some smaller units spotting and actively searching for unknown caches on Blufor, but on paper it seems reasonable to say that 80% of the players on the server should be focused on the known cache.

However, this is definitely not how a substantial number of Insurgency games play out. As it is a large number of Insurgent players will often ignore the known cache in favour of other things. Things like spawning on unknown caches, either because they think it needs defending or because they think it is closer to the action. Things like the afore-mentioned disruption tactics, mining choke points and well traveled Blufor routes, setting up ambushes etc. Things like actively hunting down and engaging Blufor squads even though they are no where near the known cache. This frequently leads to situations where more than half of the Ins team is hundreds of meters away from the main objective and hoping that someone else will defend it, and then wonder to themselves how the caches keep going down so easily.


Image
An average and fairly scattered defence.


Why is this? I would argue it is because the Insurgent game mode in its present form is too unfocused. It may be unpopular of me to say this, but defending known caches is boring. Necessary if you want to win, but also boring. An Insurgent player sitting on or near a cache could be waiting 10/20 minutes or more between engagements. And why is that? The known cache is the main objective, why are Blufor not attacking it almost constantly? Well, a lot of the time they simply don't have too. To use the most extreme example, the US on Karbala can and frequently do win by hunting unknown caches almost exclusively. There is a saying in this community; "Players are hardcoded", which for me means players are largely interested in their own satisfaction and players, like water, will usually take the path of least resistance. Why would I attack the known cache when I have the option of hunting for the unknown and could easily get a free kill on it if I find it? And if no Blufor are attacking the known why would I sit here for 20 minutes bored out of my mind, when I could go find them and kill them and get that enjoyment I am here to have?

For me this is a breakdown of the fundamental problem with the Ins gamemode, the root of which is that the principal gameplay conceit does not function as it should. That is; players do not feel they have to/do not want to attack/defend the known cache.

I feel like situations like the one below:

Image
A handful of people defending the known cache.


Could be avoided by a major revamping of the Insurgency game mechanics. So here comes the actual suggestion part ;)

Remove Unknown Caches

Remove the second cache altogether. One cache to defend and one cache to attack. Suddenly all those Blufor squads that were out hunting unknowns have no real choice but to attack the known, and those Ins players who were out hunting Blufor miles from the cache want to defend again, because that's where the action is.

Similar to now, every time a new cache spawns it has 5 minutes before becoming known to Blufor, allowing the Ins to prepare.

Intel System Tweak

Now that there are no unknown caches to gain intel on, what could the Intel Points system be used for, if anything? One possibility; the cache marker could start out with something like a 200m/150m/100m radius for Blufor. As they gain intel that radius decreases in 25m/50m jumps.

Cache Timer

I think I saw Rudd say something along these lines once; make it so that caches will disappear after 30/45 minutes. This would count as the Insurgents having successfully defended and "moved" the cache. This would largely be to allow the Blufor to still win if the Ins get an easily defended cache location.

As above the new cache location would become known after 5 minutes, to give the Ins time to set up Hideouts etc. Blufor would still have to destroy X amount of caches (however many makes sense with this system, possibly a lot less than with the current one.)


In closing, obviously the Devs are awesome for giving so much of their free time to us for PR and this is not a slur against them, but I honestly do think that the Insurgency game mode in its current state is borderline broken. I do not believe it works as intended, and if not the ones listed above, I think it definitely needs some kind of drastic alteration.
dude this is so much better i mos def agree with this OP if only the devs will take it into account :lol:

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-19 17:19
by StickyWicket
I feel like boiling insurgency down to just cache defence is just a devolution in the gamemode's uniqueness. Do we seriously want to encourage staying in an area 300 meters in diameter around the cache, getting owned by optics/APCs till they eventually get to the cache, and repeat? That seems awfully boring. I think ambushing, fake caches, IEDs, spotting, sector clearing, searching and whatever else BUT defending the cache is more fun and equally as useful as actually defending the cache. It just becomes a war of attrition with one side dying three times more than the other because they can't exploit their enemies' weaknesses properly.

Take Al Basrah for example. Insurgents have many reasons to do things besides defending the cache. They can take over the VCP and shoot at armor coming out of the airport if they build an SPG, and when the british try and take it over they loose tickets. When insurgents proactively blow up bridges it can slow down the British's advance and deny them to certain areas. Hunting for FOBs is extremely beneficial for obvious reasons. Plus, all of the tactics suggested can be countered by Blufor, making it fun for them as well.

Main problems I have with insurgency at this point is that ghosting is incredibly easy to do for Blufor and there's a lack of urban territory in most Iraqi maps. There's other things, of cource, like the respawn time and the fact that civilians aren't as useful as they used to be. "focusing" gameplay isn't really needed, but teamwork should definitely be more encouraged.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-19 19:38
by Solid Knight
Rabbit wrote:Well usually when you get hit by them, its by some guy standing on the side of the road no other weapons. Also, at least in my opinion, not having a weapon helps keep it as an ambush kit and not an assault kit.

Need more than one RKG to make the kit useful. Nobody is going to grab the RKG if they get one toss then are completely helpless afterward.

I would advise that the kit mimic being a civilian except to have an RKG. That way you could effectively ambush vehicles.

I would also suggest alternate civilian kits with different models so that people aren't always looking for the guys in white shirts.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-24 02:36
by Hurricane
Solid Knight wrote:I would also suggest alternate civilian kits with different models so that people aren't always looking for the guys in white shirts.
Yes, there should definitely be an alternative civi kit with a different shirt. It's possible right now but you always need somebody else to help you.

This would force blufor to be way more careful with target identification and force them to hold fire when in doubt - just like in real asymetrical conflicts.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-24 05:56
by Solid Knight
Hurricane wrote:Yes, there should definitely be an alternative civi kit with a different shirt. It's possible right now but you always need somebody else to help you.

This would force blufor to be way more careful with target identification and force them to hold fire when in doubt - just like in real asymetrical conflicts.
They could also add the "unarmed" slot to the "riflemen" classes so they can feign being a civilian.

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Posted: 2013-10-24 08:22
by Arab
StickyWicket wrote:I feel like boiling insurgency down to just cache defence is just a devolution in the gamemode's uniqueness. Do we seriously want to encourage staying in an area 300 meters in diameter around the cache, getting owned by optics/APCs till they eventually get to the cache, and repeat? That seems awfully boring. I think ambushing, fake caches, IEDs, spotting, sector clearing, searching and whatever else BUT defending the cache is more fun and equally as useful as actually defending the cache. It just becomes a war of attrition with one side dying three times more than the other because they can't exploit their enemies' weaknesses properly.

Take Al Basrah for example. Insurgents have many reasons to do things besides defending the cache. They can take over the VCP and shoot at armor coming out of the airport if they build an SPG, and when the british try and take it over they loose tickets. When insurgents proactively blow up bridges it can slow down the British's advance and deny them to certain areas. Hunting for FOBs is extremely beneficial for obvious reasons. Plus, all of the tactics suggested can be countered by Blufor, making it fun for them as well.

Main problems I have with insurgency at this point is that ghosting is incredibly easy to do for Blufor and there's a lack of urban territory in most Iraqi maps. There's other things, of cource, like the respawn time and the fact that civilians aren't as useful as they used to be. "focusing" gameplay isn't really needed, but teamwork should definitely be more encouraged.
I just got an idea for how to prevent ghosting!

For any team that switches, the server should put a message:
"player has switched from opfor to blufor"
"player x has switched from blufor to opfor"

That way, you can know who is ghosting and can warn players.