Project Reality Forums

Elvin wrote:When I first started playing PR in insurgency maps I thought to myself: Hmm these insurgents are having a pretty hard time against fully armed army with armour and whatnot, at least they can pickup superior equip to even the odds. I always thought of insurgents picking up enemy kits as a good gameplay element. Who cares that they can pickup a LAT kit? HE DESERVES that kit anyways. And it's not like he's gonna run with it for a whole game.

Oh, I understand what you mean, but the issue is that it ends up creating some implications of a few kits. Like, have you ever been told "DONT TAKE A LAT IN INS!". That is an unintended, and somewhat destructive effect on the kit. It's kind of silly.

I see what you mean about evening the odds. However, we can even the odds in different ways. Look at lashkar, or ramiel. Do the taliban/ins need the At4 to even the odds? NO, because they have the terrain, and tons of RPGs. Hills impossible for armour, cities that lend themselves to iron sighted weapons, and RPGs, caves where a LAT and scope wouldnt help you at all. That's what the problem with INS. The game mode of INs works well in theory, and in practice. It falls apart when the map is imbalanced, and things like giving insurgents the other team's kits is not a solution, when it creates as many problems as it fixes.

Also, i'm trying to compile a list of imbalanced INS maps, and suggesting how to fix these, would devs be interested in that?

Insurgent weapons are on par with BLUFOR weapons in most cases (BLUFOR ARs are better; I feel the other weapons favour OPFOR actually) and armour is basically irrelevant in PR IMO (plus it isn't, to my knowledge, linked to kits anyway).

40mmrain wrote: Also, i'm trying to compile a list of imbalanced INS maps, and suggesting how to fix these, would devs be interested in that?

Of course. Just post it here so we can all read it and add comments.

Definitely agreed that these changes are for the better, with the reduced number of caches, we can also afford to remove the shitty cache locations, since we don't need 7 in a round.

Would it be possible to make caches spawn dependent on Intel? So instead of there being an unknown, there wouldn't be a cache until bluefor has the Intel.

Couple days ago, in CIA, I was playing Kokan on US side. but the cache is so hard to reach, so we lost that round.

Yeah the cave caches are impossible. I was on the Taliban side on Lashkar and the second cache was in a cave. They couldnt even come close as it was only accesible though a hole in the ceiling you had to throw a rope through to get up. There was 15 of us sitting on the top of that hole shooting down rpgs, fragging, emptying our magazines. Only one german managed to get up because everybody was derp at that time. I felt bad for the germans.

So, reposition the cave caches so there is atleast two points of approach.

Also, for the no enemy kit pickup. Stop whining, children. As somebody said, you go there, look for ammo bags (there is millions of them) and youre good. "But Arnoldio, i wanted an M4 because AKs suck and i wanted to play on the BLUFOR anyway but got switched so i want to use american weapons!". Fuck you.

I love the new rally point system. It works well and is a great asset for keeping things flowing for your squad.

I will say that while I like the new focused combat of the insurgency mode that comes with one cache at a time, as others have said it makes things basically impossible without JDAMs when it comes to destroying a cave cache.

That said, props to DB mod and its creator(s). It works well and solves many problems with the game.

I don't like the 1 cache system. 32 players defending against 32 attackers in PR isn't ever going to be "balanced". The insurgents need multiple caches so they can't just stack the whole team on one cache. If the blufor managed to get a cache, they've most likely lost too many tickets to win the round at the rate they're going.

I've played maybe 5 insurgency maps with 1 cache, the insurgents won every time, I switched to INS every time, but I could have alt-tabbed and the results would have been the same. There were some enjoyable firefights at times, but it was in between a lot of waiting, waiting, and more waiting.

badmojo420 wrote:I don't like the 1 cache system. 32 players defending against 32 attackers in PR isn't ever going to be "balanced". The insurgents need multiple caches so they can't just stack the whole team on one cache. If the blufor managed to get a cache, they've most likely lost too many tickets to win the round at the rate they're going.

I dont see how a whole team stacked on one cache, vs the whole team stacked against them is unfair.

Right now, the ticket count for coalition forces is too low because, it's a rather gruff way of trying to even out the maps where 300-0 games were common. You're confusing the cause of the effect. The effect is BLUFOR having a tough time, the cause is low tickets, not one cache. There's some other variables associated with the nature of balance in an attack vs defense setting, that i've been contemplating.

So, we have cache number, number of active caches, difference in equipment, map terrain, intelligence factors, AND on top of that, effectiveness of ability to uphold objective vs. rough ticket loss quotient is a factor. Rough ticket loss, is basically a unit of tickets or caches lost/time. So we assign number of tickets as N, number of caches as C, and average time it takes to destroy a cache as t, and do this equation. ((N/C)*(C/t), you get a quotient of ON AVERAGE how many tickets blufor loses per cache. Then we take ((C/N)*(C/t)), and that should be caches lost per amount of tickets BLUFOR loses on average. IDeally, these numbers ought to be same, because would mean that on average, the BLUFOR wins as much as OPFOR. Now, finally we take a rough estimation oh how easy it is, on average to attack the enemy, and for INS how easy it is to defend. We assign a variable, F for this, where objective upholding being easy is HIGH and hard being LOW. and the rough ticket loss quotient factor as Q. So, a balanced map produces an equal F/Q value for either side, which again means balance, but in slightly more dynamic way. However, like i'll state below a really high F/Q value (which would mean easy to attack or defend, but your ticket or cache count is low.) or a really low value (you lose objectives constantly, but you have so many tickets/caches it's irrelevant). So basically an equal F/Q value, is what this mod tries to do, however, to get ideal F/Q values (this has no number, because I cant quantify abiltiy to uphold objective yet), then the map needs to be what we can agree as good.

what i mean by that is, for example, if there was a map that was a complete open field, and the americans got 100 bradleys, but they only started with 5 tickets, and they had to destroy 100 caches, then even though the game would favour insurgents, because two kills, or one apc and they win, however it would still be bad for them. The point of trying to make is, even if we play with cache and ticket counts until the results of every map are 50/50 for both sides it can still be bad. So even though numbers are ok, if the teams cant properly play the game then it is bad. Ability to uphold objective needs to be in equilibrium. Uh, you cant really quantify this without a ton of statistics, it would be easier to just kind of "feel it out". So extreme examples would be a cache out, literally in the middle of a field in dragon fly. This would be an example of impossible to uphold objective, especially when they have like 5 armour pieces. Or caches that are in deep caves, with multiple stories requiring ropes, it is impossible for BLU to uphold objective in that case. This is just something mappers should consider when building maps. Simply put ask yourself, are there caches where upholding the objective is impossible, or incredibly easy for one side, and hard for the other.


I will make a list of maps, with caches that produce bad F/Q values, and a list of maps that overall have completely off F/Q values, with or without DB's mod.

edit: On rereading it appears i've run into mathematical nonsense, you cant have equal but bad F/Q values, that makes no sense, actually. You can equally bad ones, that result in balance, but bad gameplay. That should be, the difference between both F/Q values, from the ideal number should be equal.

40mmrain wrote:I dont see how a whole team stacked on one cache, vs the whole team stacked against them is unfair.

Right now, the ticket count for coalition forces is too low because, it's a rather gruff way of trying to even out the maps where 300-0 games were common. You're confusing the cause of the effect. The effect is BLUFOR having a tough time, the cause is low tickets, not one cache. There's some other variables associated with the nature of balance in an attack vs defense setting, that i've been contemplating.

So, we have cache number, number of active caches, difference in equipment, map terrain, intelligence factors, AND on top of that, effectiveness of ability to uphold objective vs. rough ticket loss quotient is a factor. Rough ticket loss, is basically a unit of tickets or caches lost/time. So we assign number of tickets as N, number of caches as C, and average time it takes to destroy a cache as t, and do this equation. ((N/C)*(C/t), you get a quotient of ON AVERAGE how many tickets blufor loses per cache. Then we take ((C/N)*(C/t)), and that should be caches lost per amount of tickets BLUFOR loses on average. IDeally, these numbers ought to be same, because would mean that on average, the BLUFOR wins as much as OPFOR. Now, finally we take a rough estimation oh how easy it is, on average to attack the enemy, and for INS how easy it is to defend. We assign a variable, F for this, where objective upholding being easy is HIGH and hard being LOW. and the rough ticket loss quotient factor as Q. So, a balanced map produces an equal F/Q value for either side, which again means balance, but in slightly more dynamic way. However, like i'll state below a really high F/Q value (which would mean easy to attack or defend, but your ticket or cache count is low.) or a really low value (you lose objectives constantly, but you have so many tickets/caches it's irrelevant). So basically an equal F/Q value, is what this mod tries to do, however, to get ideal F/Q values (this has no number, because I cant quantify abiltiy to uphold objective yet), then the map needs to be what we can agree as good.

what i mean by that is, for example, if there was a map that was a complete open field, and the americans got 100 bradleys, but they only started with 5 tickets, and they had to destroy 100 caches, then even though the game would favour insurgents, because two kills, or one apc and they win, however it would still be bad for them. The point of trying to make is, even if we play with cache and ticket counts until the results of every map are 50/50 for both sides it can still be bad. So even though numbers are ok, if the teams cant properly play the game then it is bad. Ability to uphold objective needs to be in equilibrium. Uh, you cant really quantify this without a ton of statistics, it would be easier to just kind of "feel it out". So extreme examples would be a cache out, literally in the middle of a field in dragon fly. This would be an example of impossible to uphold objective, especially when they have like 5 armour pieces. Or caches that are in deep caves, with multiple stories requiring ropes, it is impossible for BLU to uphold objective in that case. This is just something mappers should consider when building maps. Simply put ask yourself, are there caches where upholding the objective is impossible, or incredibly easy for one side, and hard for the other.


I will make a list of maps, with caches that produce bad F/Q values, and a list of maps that overall have completely off F/Q values, with or without DB's mod.

edit: On rereading it appears i've run into mathematical nonsense, you cant have equal but bad F/Q values, that makes no sense, actually. You can equally bad ones, that result in balance, but bad gameplay. That should be, the difference between both F/Q values, from the ideal number should be equal.

I didn't say it was unfair, I said it's not going to be balanced. I should have said, to balance it would require a lot of reworking of the numbers, like you've explained above.

I think caches should be placed in logical places. They should be placed where players themselves would place the cache given the chance. So, relying on mappers to help balance the game mode is not the right approach in my mind. Caches should be objectives in easily defended positions. Everything else in the game mode should be balanced around that.

So with that in mind, having only 1 cache inside a cave or in the corner of the map will mean an impossible mission for the blufor. Not because the blufor suck or need more tickets, but because with 32 people defending it, it's next to impossible to overrun. Especially in a public game.

With more than one cache, the insurgents are forced to split their numbers. While the blufor are able to stack up their whole force on one cache. 32 players assaulting a position defended by 16 is still a tough fight.

It's my opinion that even more cahces 5-10 would be beneficial to the game mode. Of course balancing will be required.

yeah multiple caches seems to be a way of scooting around the impossible ones.

theyre a decent solution until we can have all maps perfect. Having unknowns, I think just doesnt work. I feel as if a new cache spawning after an allotted intel gain, after the first known on the map is revealed.

The ultimate solution is map fixing, but that's a lot of work.

I hate typing big replies only to accidentally lose the post

One thing I've always thought would be good for insurgency is less intelligence for the insurgents. What I mean by this is right now they can tell before the blufor which cache location has been compromised, they get 5minutes to prepare for the onslaught. It doesn't seem right that they get this warning and basically know more than the blufor.

So, with a system of 5 caches, have all 5 appear blue on the insurgents maps. This would force the insurgents to spread their numbers across all the caches, unknowingly defending their unknowns. It would also avoid situations where the insurgent team knows which cache the blufor will be attacking next. This should be avoided because it encourages the high profile defenses we've all seen the insurgents take. That type of defense should happen after the blufor have committed an attack on one of the caches, not before.

One thing that would screw with this, is the cache spawning mechanic. One solution would be to let the insurgents spawn until the spawn point has been overrun and is in fact known to the blufor. Unknowns could be overrun and then come back. Basically it would mean known caches will keep their spawn points even after the blufor gets their intel. So people couldn't just judge a caches state by the presence of a spawn. It's a small change that would benefit the insurgents with longer spawn point, but allow for this "loss of intelligence" on the insurgent side.

----

I have to disagree with the ultimate solution being map fixing, like I said in my other post, I think the caches should be in very difficult places, in essence I think the "impossible" caches in this test are the ones that should be the standard for all others. Start with impossible to assault places, then balance the game around them. If they're impossible with 32 players defending, are they still impossible with 6 players defending? 3 players? It's all a fragile balancing act.

i have to disagree with only 1 cashe being impossible. i have seen serveral blufor victorys on basra alt (w/chopper), kokan w/u.s. karbala and falujah.
havent seen a blufor victory on kokan w/ canada, basra std (w/tank and w/o air), ramiel, korengal and lashgar.

havent played archer, iron, dragon or gaza

it is harder for blufor and requires almost complete TEAM cooperation and above all...communication.
and u need mortars to win. havent seen a blufor team win without them.
insurgents do win more often than not but for me...i use to prefer opfor because the odd were stacked against them....now i like blufor again with dbmod...guess im a guy who likes to beat the odds.

The reason people fail a lot on insurgency when often time's it is so easy is as Anderson stated lack of communication. Most days as an insurgent on Basrah or Fallujah I see groups of infantry swarming cache areas or just a couple guys walk up thinking they're the A-team. It's hit & miss because the more experienced players shun the game mode because they seem to think it's completly broken when it's really a lack of communication/teamwork.

There's a reason we use to have 24/7 insurgency servers fill all day everyday a while back, it wasn't because it was broken completly it was because people worked together.

I still feel that reducing the effectiveness of HATs is a better solution to the problem here than simply reducing the number of them available.

There is that server-side mod I think when I played on the Kokan and the other map 24/7 server that allows 4 caches only. I played on the map with Canadian Armed Forces VS Taliban. It went by quickly, though I couldn't really see the enemy.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:I still feel that reducing the effectiveness of HATs is a better solution to the problem here than simply reducing the number of them available.

Ok, explain why then.

Two means that your team's infantry AT isn't entirely hijacked when somebody grabs a HAT and goes for a wander away from the Battlefield, for one.

I'm not saying a reduction from two HATs to one doesn't work or that it's a bad idea - it's a good one that solves one of PR's biggest issues - but I feel that it's best to pursue all the possibilities before settling on one.

Anderson29 wrote: it is harder for blufor and requires almost complete TEAM cooperation and above all...communication.

That apparently is hard. One objective, nope still 3/4 if the team doing something completely irrelevant. I understand 2 objectives split up the team, but anyone with any mental illness could figure out that if there is only one objective to attack, there is little to do anywhere not near it.

"Point at all the blue shapes on the map, Joe."
-"Emmm, there is only one, here, miss."
"Good, Joe, very good." <- How slow kid would solve the problem.

"Attack the only objective, team."
-"Nuuunununununu, aaaaaaaarrrrrr, aarrrrrr, yah yah yah, wooop wooop wooooooooop, mumumu nununununu..."
*Alt + F4* <- How pr players play the game.

When I play pr I just accept what team I'm on and try to adapt and think out of the box. Every since INS there have been negative attitudes of some players on the insurgency or (less equipped with goodies) side compared to the other. I see this all the time and it's frustrating to me.

When playing blufor they often plan well and have good strategy whereas on the insurgency sometimes but not all the time there are defeatist attitudes. Putting the blame solely on weapons, cache numbers/locations is a mistake. I like to see the experimentation with changes, thats what has kept this game going. However sometimes you just have to bring your game up?