Project Reality Forums

why not just have everyone spawn as a civi except squad leader and one other as they would be the "limited kits" and once the hideout is built the civies can get kits off them. I think this would encourage everyone to make sure the hideouts get built. And with the suggestion about having better kits available the longer the hideout is alive would mean people will conscious about putting the hideouts in good spots.

Mats391 wrote:id rather go for a similar system like limited kits use: you have a pool of 3 hideouts, after one hideout is completly destroyed (gone from map) it will return back to the pool after 10min.

Good suggestion.


With the stuff mentioned above, you have VIP (find Squadleaders that start the "uprising"), Insurgency (find hidden stuff) and CnC (find Spawnpoint to win) all combined in one gamemode

I like idea with everybody spawning as civilian, and SL need to build hideouts first, but I would require adding shovels to civis, which will replace resuscitate, or replace pistol for Officer.

Yes, I thought of the Civis as having no kit at all (only shovel / hand / wave and such), without epipens and rope and all that.

I think that there should be weapon caches instead of hideouts, which will start slowly spawning kits, so first some with shotgun and bolt-action rifles, after like 5 min first AKs, after 10 ARs, marksman rifles, saper kits, like AT, and after 20 MMGs, HAT, Arty IEDs. So it would encourage players to actually defend this caches, so they can defend and ambush BLUFOr better, instead of moving from one part of map to another placing hideouts randomly.

I think the Kits availability should not be relying on passing time but on the number of Hideouts being available.
First Hideout built: People can request/pickup "low value" weapons (Makarov, Pistols, First-Aid-Kit..)
2 Hideouts: People can request/pickup "low to medium value" weapons (SKS, Epipens, Mossberg, AK47 ... )
3 Hideouts: People can request/pickup "low to high value" weapons (RPG, ArtyIED, AK74, SVD ...)
This gives the hideout-system an actual impact on gameplay and makes them very important as the crucial "infrastructure" for the uprising. If hideout gets destroyed, the weapons that can be requested have a lower value. If all hideouts are destroyed, everyone is going to be a civi again (I'd suggest heavy ticket bleed)
(reminds me of SurvivalGames System, ask Onil about that)

That would be combined with late spawn-times for Bluefor-Vehicles (to simulate the deployment of a stronger force once the uprising becomes bigger) because they would otherwise rape everything in the beginning.

I find this a very innovative, dynamic new way of PR-gameplay. However, I see that our suggestions go far behind that what can be coded/implemented in a way that does not take too much effort, so we maybe should concentrate on keeping it simple

Nate(GER) wrote:I find this a very innovative, dynamic new way of PR-gameplay. However, I see that our suggestions go far behind that what can be coded/implemented in a way that does not take too much effort, so we maybe should concentrate on keeping it simple

Indeed! everyone of us is waiting for PR1.0

I Like where this is going. I agree that the Insurgent squad leaders should be armed while everyone else is unarmed to make them legitimate targets for the Blufor.

Once the Hideouts are built people should just be able to go to them and request AK-47s, RPG-7s and PKMs. I think it would be good to keep the insurgents lightly armed as it is meant to only be a rebellion. If you want to keep with the Rebellion theme then Insurgents should be able to capture Blufor weapons like MGs and Marksman rifles. Basically what im picturing is a Mogadishu type scenario where a few rebels incite an insurrection against the enemy forces.

On that note this would be a good gamemode for RAMIEL with the african resistance.



Alternative name for gamemode: INSURRECTION

Nate(GER) wrote:I find this a very innovative, dynamic new way of PR-gameplay. However, I see that our suggestions go far behind that what can be coded/implemented in a way that does not take too much effort, so we maybe should concentrate on keeping it simple

totally agree i just can't wait for PR 1.0 and working now on new complicated codes ain't worth it (right now of course) but a great idea just need twiks here and there and it will be batter.

Has anybody read my post on page 1 ? Didn't get any feedback on it

Blackburn92xBHD wrote:Hello Dear Community!

Rebellion Suppress:

(etc)

what do you think?

Another unbalanced game mode? I don't see this as being a game mode where people would want to play on rebels/insurgents... This sounds like shooting fish in a barrel with an expected outcome of assured loss. What incentive is there for people to play on OPFOR?

Not to be negative Nancy on this one, but have you any ideas for what kind of retaliation could be taken against BLUFOR to balance it out?

Just a suggestion here, but maybe BLUFOR infantry and supplies could also initially be parachuted in via a C130 for a limited time, and then it could be an equal balance of both sides trying to eliminate the enemy presence. Now that would be a little more balanced. Otherwise we're looking at map rotations that encourage teamstacking due to the foresight that next map would be this game mode. Or people bugging out because the game mode is unbalanced and they had poor luck of the login to end up on OPFOR.

youve looked too much at this with a narrow vision the gamemode could be very balanced the cons and pros of each team are listed below:

BLUFOR:
Pros-
-Potential air support and air transport.
-Armored vehicles and vehicle transports.
-Superior Weaponry.
Cons-
-Have to follow ROE

-OPFOR:
pros-
-Unlimited reinforcements
-Unknown positions.
-Can capture enemy weapons (possibly?)

cons-
-Lack of armed Vehicles
-Lack of weaponry

By my assessment it is just as balanced as insurgency (well balanced in other words)

and with the way things are going in USA we could do a US Secret Service against minutemen!

hahahaha

This is really exciting. I love playing the underdog in PR, and this could potentially have great depth. I also like the idea of only armed SLs initally, but I have one question; what stops blufor from simply killing all the civies they see at round start? They have no worries about intel, and most players could care less about their points. Perhaps a small ticket loss? 1-2 ticks per dead 'innocent'? Then of course you invite silly suicide commandos that charge in front of humvees or otherwise attempt to cheese a death. Perhaps each kill could further prolong the arrival of heavier assets? I have no experience with python, but I have a hunch that might be quite an ulcer to code.

(I would massacre civies anyway just to spite the asset whores )

Walmarx wrote:This is really exciting. I love playing the underdog in PR, and this could potentially have great depth. I also like the idea of only armed SLs initally, but I have one question; what stops blufor from simply killing all the civies they see at round start? They have no worries about intel, and most players could care less about their points. Perhaps a small ticket loss? 1-2 ticks per dead 'innocent'? Then of course you invite silly suicide commandos that charge in front of humvees or otherwise attempt to cheese a death. Perhaps each kill could further prolong the arrival of heavier assets? I have no experience with python, but I have a hunch that might be quite an ulcer to code.

(I would massacre civies anyway just to spite the asset whores )

Good question. when it comes to civis there is usually a paradox. Ill think about it hopefully someone has an idea for that.

I like the sound of insurgency CNC Could be very interesting, but an idea like this would have to be implemented first as a test run, then tested and made better.

I love this idea. Throwing money at the screen for it to happen

No more insurgency sub-modes, please. The extremely misnamed by the community "Civilians" never belonged in this game, at least not on this engine.

Are you afraid of change ? More game modes is what PR needs no one can really argue with that. As for the problem of civilians being mercilessly slaughtered by the Blufor i think the spawn and kit penalty's will make them rethink that. A ticket penalty could also be implemented but it may cause civis to make suicide rushes. Maybe the time penalty could be increased slightly to discourage it more or even implement an auto kick after 5 or 10 civi kills? I dont really think it will be that much of an issue as the punishments for civilian death seems to do well enough at the moment.

Let's take the civilian topic elsewhere. That really has been talked to death, and so far, civies were always unbalanced towards one of the teams (either they could roam free and would attempt suicide to punish the US, or they were basically legit targets with no means of defense)

Anyway, save that for a different discussion. Back to the game mode.

Eddie Baker wrote:No more insurgency sub-modes, please. The extremely misnamed by the community "Civilians" never belonged in this game, at least not on this engine.

I for one love Insurgency. It is unlike any other dynamic available in gaming today, and I eagerly await its expansion and variation. If the Civilian/Collaborator (I always thought of these names as two sides of one coin) element must be abandoned to further this discussion, then so be it, but why condemn the entire concept just because it is derived from what is now essentially half of PR?

Anyways, here is a little idea to give this post some meaning : )

Perhaps Blufor could start the round in possession of a few small-radius capzones, to represent high-value structures (Embassies, VIP residences, Oil refineries). Losing them could cost precious tickets, or maybe just spawn better equipment (vehicles?) for Opfor. Assuming heavy assets would not be available initially, I don't think balance would be too great of an issue here. This would help get the battle focused right out of the gate, thus avoiding that slightly nebulous feeling one gets between confirmed caches in standard Insurgency.

It might also be interesting to throw around the notion of Opfor having ways of gaining tickets, to represent a force that is growing in strength. This sounds like something that might be hard-coded, and beyond that, a balancing nightmare, but it is barely the seed of an idea as of now. Perhaps only if three or more Hideouts are intact and functioning, then the Opfor generates tickets. This might help put pressure on Blufor to discourage FOB camping/scope-whoring. Then again, it occurs to me that the same effect could be achieved with a Blufor-bleed... but darnit this is fresher and excitinger!

Walmarx wrote:I for one love Insurgency. It is unlike any other dynamic available in gaming today, and I eagerly await its expansion and variation. If the Civilian/Collaborator (I always thought of these names as two sides of one coin) element must be abandoned to further this discussion, then so be it, but why condemn the entire concept just because it is derived from what is now essentially half of PR?

Anyways, here is a little idea to give this post some meaning : )

Perhaps Blufor could start the round in possession of a few small-radius capzones, to represent high-value structures (Embassies, VIP residences, Oil refineries). Losing them could cost precious tickets, or maybe just spawn better equipment (vehicles?) for Opfor. Assuming heavy assets would not be available initially, I don't think balance would be too great of an issue here. This would help get the battle focused right out of the gate, thus avoiding that slightly nebulous feeling one gets between confirmed caches in standard Insurgency.

It might also be interesting to throw around the notion of Opfor having ways of gaining tickets, to represent a force that is growing in strength. This sounds like something that might be hard-coded, and beyond that, a balancing nightmare, but it is barely the seed of an idea as of now. Perhaps only if three or more Hideouts are intact and functioning, then the Opfor generates tickets. This might help put pressure on Blufor to discourage FOB camping/scope-whoring. Then again, it occurs to me that the same effect could be achieved with a Blufor-bleed... but darnit this is fresher and excitinger!

I dont think the OPFOR should be on the offense like you suggest. For these types of asymmetrical game modes to flow well it is best that one team attacks while the other(usually the OPFOR) defends and harasses the enemy. So far i think this game mode idea sounds pretty solid anyway its best to make it not to complicated and relatively straight forward.

This is my summary of the gamemode idea (correct me if im wrong):
-Game begins
Most insurgents spawn as unarmed civilians(with spades only).
All insurgent squad leaders spawn armed with cellphone, FN FAL, grenades etc.
-Insurgents spawn at random areas across map.
-Insurgent squad leaders can build HIDEOUTS, Mortars and Recoiless rifles as normal.
-Insurgents may only spawn from HIDEOUTS for the rest of the game.
-Insurgents may request Ak-47s from HIDEOUTS and a small quantity of support weapons (LAT,IED,PKM etc.)
-Blufor are punished for killing civilians but may kill armed squad leaders and detain civis for a reinforcement bonus or maybe for the location of a random FOB. (no ones actually got around to that).
-Insurgent transports spawn in random areas of the map.
-BLUFOR lose when they run out of tickets
-OPFOR lose when they lose all there HIDEOUTS

Seems pretty straight forward but also sounds challenging and exciting id love to see this game mode implemented. (seems like the perfect game mode to compliment RAMIELs change to MOGADISHU.)







Imagine the potential!

We could also do this with AAS and call it "cut-off-army" or something... i mean only the thing with spawnpoints that disappier and that they have to build fobs... not the civillians and all that other stuff we talked about...

just a small idea no need to yell at me

Why can't the insurgents be the attacking force for once?