Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration
Posted: 2013-04-24 07:33
First time I have seen this thread. Brilliant ideas web cole. I hope the DEV's have some needed changes in 1.0
What if he has ADD dude? Not cool man....not cool...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.
Well I guess he still understood the message.Darman1138 wrote:What if he has ADD dude? Not cool man....not cool...
![]()
Does weapons cache mean anything to you?=-=kittykiller wrote:kits available at MAIN , CACHE and AMMO TECHIE
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.B.Pronk(NL) wrote:Why not give the RKG kit a skorpion for personal defense? Or something like a Uzi.
dude this is so much better i mos def agree with this OP if only the devs will take it into accountWeb_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.
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:
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.
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.
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.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.
They could also add the "unarmed" slot to the "riflemen" classes so they can feign being a civilian.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.
I just got an idea for how to prevent ghosting!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.