Project Reality Forums

Psyrus wrote:Since they can already flag a # of players a X distance from the cache (such that spawning off it is disabled), I'm somewhat confident that they could create an invisible, dynamic object spawner with each cache that would damage the cache while the #+X player requirements were filled. So the end result is the same:

- No need for dynamic flags
- You still need to 'cap' the cache

It wouldn't really have the desired effect, since you could still rush up with a C4 humvee full of X number of people and boom, cache down. You need that defensive vs offensive mechanic from flags.

I'd like to see invisible flags with spawns and ammo dumps around them for insurgents, and when the flag is turned to blufor, the ammo dumps get turn into caches that remove INS tickets when destroyed. Intel system stays the same except it marks the flags. Adjust tickets as needed.

Like the suggestions.

Complaint that'd it'd be too much for insurgency : If the team has to concentrate on only one cache the insurgent should have the resources to build 3 or 4 hideouts well positioned round the cache and supply ammo to them.

Need to sort out insurgency this seems a good way - love the varying distance markers as IP increases seems realistic too.

This is exactly what insurgency needs to bring back some ode into it. Right now I hate insurgency because 1. The rounds seem to go on forever if Bluefor team is not organised and the complete lack of teamwork on INS.
if too many assets coming down on one cache is a problem, simply reduce the amount of assets Bluefor has.

Great suggestion, well thought out

badmojo420 wrote:It wouldn't really have the desired effect, since you could still rush up with a C4 humvee full of X number of people and boom, cache down. You need that defensive vs offensive mechanic from flags.

Wut? That scenario would be almost impossible with the above proposal...

Psyrus wrote:Wut? That scenario would be almost impossible with the above proposal...

If we used the overrun code on the caches, wouldn't it just require # of players within X distance to enable the cache to be destroyed? I don't think the overrun procedure cares if there are any friendlies in the area or not.

Maybe I'm wrong and it would work perfectly for this, if that's the case I fully support it.

brilliant, a timer... who needs a second one?

intel could still be used to make the only cache known. im sure even the pubber would still keep their only cache available somewhat hidden if possible. or make it so the intel marker has to do with intel.

this suggestion has been needed for some time.

so intel is basically useless?

Personally, I always envisioned Insurgency vs. Counterinsurgency more as control of a city or geographical area. As a potential alternative to the current setup, I propose the following:

Insurgency maps have an odd number of control zones added, similar to AAS flag cap zones, in varying logical points around a city. These can start under either team's control, or be neutral depending upon the scenario or tactical situation. Examples of logical points would be vehicle checkpoints, major intersections, large landmark buildings, major terrain features, etc. In order to maintain control of a control zone, rather than a set number of players, as in AAS, each team would be required to build a FOB (or hideout) and eliminate enemy FOB's or hideouts in the zone. When one team achieves control superiority by controlling more of the control zones than the opposing team, the opposing team should start a slow ticket bleed. As more zones are taken, the rate of ticket bleed should increase.

The theory behind this system is that in an insurgency campaign, not only are you fighting the occupying force, you want and need the support of the population. Similarly, in a counterinsurgency, the support of the population is vital as well. If a counterinsurgent force just stays buttoned up in a fortified base and only comes to town to rain down high explosive destruction, I doubt that the local population will be thrilled with their presence. In contrast, if that same counterinsurgent force spends time to clear an area of insurgent forces, including local "safe houses," and maintains a presence, the population will be more supportive of their actions, and less so of the insurgent force's.

There are some minor tweaks that would help this idea along, but are merely suggestions, and I welcome constructive criticism.

1. Change the loadout on the ammo techie from three ammo boxes to one weapons cache. With the focus of Insurgency game play shifting (per the overall suggestion in my post) away from caches and to control of the area, caches can become supply crates for insurgent factions.

2. Give techies one ammo box each. All blufor jeep type vehicles carry ammo boxes. Pretty please with pink sugar on top can the poor backwards insurgents learn how to put a box of bullets in the back of a pickup truck?

3. Change the Insurgent faction to a kit request faction, to bring them in line with Hamas, Taliban, and Militia. Keep their unique kits and feel, but please change them to a kit request faction. This will offer far more incentive for squad based play on maps featuring this faction.

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:As for this:

Caches should only spawn once enough Intel has been gathered to reveal them.

Although as attractive as it may sound, I fail to see how the redundancy of system is any way an improvement to the 1 cache only suggestion. Or how it will make less Insurgents bored or teams less scattered.

The main difference between this and my suggestion is one of practicality. Whilst I don't know for sure, I suspect implementing my suggestion (or something like it) would require a lot of work; coding, tweaking cache locations, tweaking asset layouts, re-balancing everything etc.

If its possible to do easily, Discos idea should be a lot less work for a similar gain.

Stoickk wrote:As a potential alternative to the current setup, I propose the following:

-snip-

Afterdune says:

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]AfterDune;1692674']Instead of flags, I'd rather have areas to capture, like this:



But I'm afraid that's not really possible.[/quote]


[quote="Cassius""]I really dont see the problem.

1. 2 caches spawn for a reason, so the insrugents have to manage their forces between the 2 caches.[/quote]

I kind of agree with you, but I think its a slight simplification to say that Opfor have to manage their forces between two caches. In reality, the way the system is set up, the Insurgents are supposed to manage their forces between known caches.

If, as you have suggested, the Ins team are actually supposed to be defending any cache irrespective of its state, then first of all the game itself probably needs to be clearer about this (pretty sure there are scrolling messages which say to defend the known caches.) Second of all, that would sort of seem to make the intel system redundant. And thirdly, I'm not convinced most maps are balanced for Ins to be constantly defending 2 locations at once.

And even if that were the case, I still feel like most of my criticisms in the OP would be valid; the system does not function as intended.

Cassius wrote:2. You want to keep the fight away from the cache. If insurgents manage to engage a squad in a fight away from the cache its a good thing. Ambushes are a good thing

You want the only game tactic to be "sit on the cache", I dont think thats how it should be done, nor is it always the best option.

Well, I half agree with you, but this feels more like a stylistic argument. Personally I feel like 80% of the Ins squads should be within 200m (or closer on 1k maps), one squad should "sit on the cache" and the others should act as aggressive defence.

If you just have people all over the place, chasing every Blufor hundreds of meters away from the cache, and you don't have anyone with LOS on the cache its stupidly easy for Blufor to sneak through and destroy it.

Cassius wrote:Your suggestions would reduce the number of viable options, scenarios and tactics. A pitched fight as 60 Players converge on one grid still happens at times albeight not all the time. Enjoy the variety instead.

I like complexity, but Insurgency is not complex. It is chaotic, its systems are frequently proven nonsensical, and it facilitates lone wolfing. Those few players who actually do what the game tells you to do - "defend the known caches"- are often rewarded with boredom.

intel gives you intel like it did back in the day, a 150 meter radius marker. to where the ONE unknown is.

you can still keep it hidden and fake caches could still be possible, especially if the intel required is a decent amount.

after its known they will still more than likely have to find its exact location.

i just got an idea. instead of a timer on the cache... make it so area attack can kill the cache. its a free cache kill every w/e time devs like. just in case the cache is in a really hard spot. so the difficulty of killing the only cache on the map is negated by 5 30min area attacks. adjust required caches to kill accordingly

Area attack could work, and it also encourages the use of a commander and that's never a bad thing. The one cache idea isn't such a bad idea either. It would definitely focus the fighting more as there would be no other way for the blue-force team to win.

Some other ideas to change the lack of teamwork on insurgency.

Penalize insurgents for dying: If their deaths cost tickets it could change many things and might encourage less suicidal actions and more squad play. Of course, it would have to be nearly impossible for an insurgent team to lose only by death ticket loss, but it's an idea. Right now insurgent death means very little, especially when the cache has been discovered and no more intel is being gained.

Squad rally points: These could be put back in for insurgents to encourage them to work together to at least set a spawn point. If this is done, I would think the rally point should last longer than the ones do now, perhaps make them like in previous versions that must be overrun. It could further simulate insurgents already living and operating within the city as they could be coming from many more places than simply a fob. It could also encourage teamwork on the insurgency team to be more squad "cell" based rather than whole team based. That of course, might not be the goal, but it's something that would make the insurgent team different to play.

These are just some other ideas I think that could help the situation a bit.

Why do these threads keep disappearing?

I'm not sure Mikemonster. I think that Insurgency definitely needs some work. Unfortunately, I had to resort to finding another post that linked to this one to find this one again.

'See All of this Users Posts' is a valuable tool.

Would it be possible to have a Dev feedback section where they give feedback on our suggestions?

My apologies for my previous comment. Will not happen again.

The threads disappear because there are no posts for a while, that's all there is to it. They're not gone, they just don't show up here. Now BTT.

this sounds like a well thought out idea and sounds like it should work great. i support this suggestion!

Stoickk wrote:Personally, I always envisioned Insurgency vs. Counterinsurgency more as control of a city or geographical area. As a potential alternative to the current setup, I propose the following:

Insurgency maps have an odd number of control zones added, similar to AAS flag cap zones, in varying logical points around a city. These can start under either team's control, or be neutral depending upon the scenario or tactical situation. Examples of logical points would be vehicle checkpoints, major intersections, large landmark buildings, major terrain features, etc. In order to maintain control of a control zone, rather than a set number of players, as in AAS, each team would be required to build a FOB (or hideout) and eliminate enemy FOB's or hideouts in the zone. When one team achieves control superiority by controlling more of the control zones than the opposing team, the opposing team should start a slow ticket bleed. As more zones are taken, the rate of ticket bleed should increase.

The theory behind this system is that in an insurgency campaign, not only are you fighting the occupying force, you want and need the support of the population. Similarly, in a counterinsurgency, the support of the population is vital as well. If a counterinsurgent force just stays buttoned up in a fortified base and only comes to town to rain down high explosive destruction, I doubt that the local population will be thrilled with their presence. In contrast, if that same counterinsurgent force spends time to clear an area of insurgent forces, including local "safe houses," and maintains a presence, the population will be more supportive of their actions, and less so of the insurgent force's.

There are some minor tweaks that would help this idea along, but are merely suggestions, and I welcome constructive criticism.

1. Change the loadout on the ammo techie from three ammo boxes to one weapons cache. With the focus of Insurgency game play shifting (per the overall suggestion in my post) away from caches and to control of the area, caches can become supply crates for insurgent factions.

2. Give techies one ammo box each. All blufor jeep type vehicles carry ammo boxes. Pretty please with pink sugar on top can the poor backwards insurgents learn how to put a box of bullets in the back of a pickup truck?

3. Change the Insurgent faction to a kit request faction, to bring them in line with Hamas, Taliban, and Militia. Keep their unique kits and feel, but please change them to a kit request faction. This will offer far more incentive for squad based play on maps featuring this faction.

As it seems that this thread, and my post within it, have been lost in the shuffle, and the debate over how to fix Insurgency mode rages on, I am reviving the topic and reposting this idea. I personally love Insurgency, but it needs work. Think of this idea as a combination of mini-CnC and AAS fights. Killing weapons caches will still be important, as they are sources of weapons for the Insurgent factions. However, more important will be eliminating the Insurgent "safe houses" or hideouts within the control zones. In other words, eliminating the Insurgent presence in the area. Instead of just rolling in and blowing stuff up, BluFor will actually need to establish a presence.

At any rate, I don't want to see this topic slip through the cracks. Even if my ideas aren't the right answers, I strongly believe that the right answers are out there.

What about making the Unknown worth less points than a Known?

For instance, make the Unknown worth 3 points instead of ten. That way, in a round, Blufor will need to destroy at least four to make it even matter.

Obviously you could play with this number.. If you make an Unknown worth 4 points then Blufor would need to destroy three per round to make a difference. Or if it's worth 5 they'd need to destroy two.

For those who would say it's unrealistic, just make up a story like we do for other things. For instance the known cache has a guy there that needs to be arrested (or shot in the face).

Mikemonster wrote:What about making the Unknown worth less points than a Known?

For instance, make the Unknown worth 3 points instead of ten. That way, in a round, Blufor will need to destroy at least four to make it even matter.

This gets my vote, though you would need to tweak the messages a bit.

EDIT: you could also make the unknown cache smaller than the known, maybe scaling it for the amount of intel. As soon as it appears it only has some small ammo boxes, then more stuff gets added the closer it gets to being known, with it being worth more points for more items?