Remove 'losing' from Insurgency

[Peeta]

[MoW];1110248']Okay people ffs. What about the idea previously posted that ins get something like 1000-3000 tickets and loose a certain number like 20-300 tickets for every cache they loose and that the "good gaiz" don't have a set number of caches to take, but every cache they take reduce the ins tickets and make them more likely to loose. And now the ins can loose in another fashion then just "Oh noes they took the magic number of caches". Also makes the insurgency game mode map controllable i think. And the "good gaiz" don't get those frustration looses when they have taken 8 caches and run out of tickets.

Then we still have the winning element that was the mayor Achilles heal in the original idea of this thread.

No need to "ffs" or get hostile. I like the "arcade" idea that Celestial is proposing. I love playing Ins, so anyway to prolong it would be nice. Basically what Celestial is getting across is what I'd like to see. And calm down guys, it's a simple discussion.

[snooggums]

I don't like this at all. If someone wants a 'bragging rights' type outcome they can either:

Say how quickly they found all 10 caches.
Say how many caches they got (up to 10) if they are somehow losing on a regular basis and just ignore the who won screen.

The proposed idea only applies to the BluFor. Screw the BluFor, both teams need objectives, which they currently do. The current gameplay also allows for more organized approaches by not requiring the BluFor team to rush to the next cache like the proposed gamemode would have.

If we want variety, there could be a random 8-12 possible caches win the game, so neither side knows how many remain, and just keep a destroyed cache counter available. Have the BluFor start with fewer tickets and get more per cache found: so start with say 100 tickets and get 20 (or 25 or 30) per cache found.

Actually I like that and it would allow for a more random number of caches while keeping the game either exciting and ongoing or end when one side starts overpowering like AAS rewards for either team.

[Rudd]

I prefer a clear line saying "you win" "you lose"

gives me drive to beat the enemy

[joethepro36]

I prefer a clear line saying "you win" "you lose"

gives me drive to beat the enemy

And I agree with this too. Taking away the "win" takes away any point in playing well as opposed to simply just playing

[Rudd]

ALso I like shorter rounds, not sure if the OP suggestion would prolong games

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Okay, no one wants to comment on the insurgence loose tickets when loose cache idea and remove 10 cache rules? I think that that idea holds all the advantage of the current system and make the gameplay more balanced with more choices to go and no set win cache number and keeps the "win or loose".

[Celestial1]

[MoW];1110422']Okay, no one wants to comment on the insurgence loose tickets when loose cache idea and remove 10 cache rules? I think that that idea holds all the advantage of the current system and make the gameplay more balanced with more choices to go and no set win cache number and keeps the "win or loose".

So go post it in the suggestion forums, or post a new discussion thread about it.

For all intents and purposes, I have gained what I needed from this thread; It was posted in discussion for a reason-I wanted to see how the community would view 'scoreless' games like the proposed.

A small group of the players seem to not mind 'scoreless' games based more on personal drive and the overall effort rather than a straightforward win/loss condition. The majority, however, prefers that win/loss condition, as an indicator that they did well in the round.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying anything about players on either side of the spectrum here, just pointing out how the players view the change.)

[Razick]

Problem with your suggestion is its not "scoreless", its outcomeless. The idea behind it is take out as many caches as possible which would work great for a statistic driven game, but PR is team competetive. Its a competetion against the opposition not teamates. Squads shouldnt be competing against each others score or cache count, which oh by the way would make your suggestion very much about the score not the experience.

Now think of the flip side, what is the incentive for the OPFOR? Why would they bother with the caches. You seem to base your experiences by how great it was to hunt caches but you must remember why you enjoy it so much. You had insurgents to fight for it as well. Now if the cache dont mean win or lose why would they compete over them? You essentially turn the game into a death match. You cant win or lose right so whats the objective?

[Celestial1]

Problem with your suggestion is its not "scoreless", its outcomeless. The idea behind it is take out as many caches as possible which would work great for a statistic driven game, but PR is team competetive. Its a competetion against the opposition not teamates. Squads shouldnt be competing against each others score or cache count, which oh by the way would make your suggestion very much about the score not the experience.

Now think of the flip side, what is the incentive for the OPFOR? Why would they bother with the caches. You seem to base your experiences by how great it was to hunt caches but you must remember why you enjoy it so much. You had insurgents to fight for it as well. Now if the cache dont mean win or lose why would they compete over them? You essentially turn the game into a death match. You cant win or lose right so whats the objective?

Win or lose would become a subjective, not objective thing. That is the only true difference between the two. There is no clear-cut message that tells you that you guys dominated the round. However, I'm sure you could appreciate the difference between getting 3 caches one round and getting 12 the next.

Likewise, the insurgent team letting the American team get 12 caches will feel like you did a disappointing job in the end. You've still got the '10 caches' base to go off of, since it seems to be a popular, reasonable amount to achieve, but you could achieve more than that, if your team had the tactics and proper communication going on.

Don't be fooled, winning and losing still exists in this suggestion (note how the title is not "Remove losing from Insurgency", the 'losing' is the way it is for a reason), it just becomes a subjective quality of the round rather than an objective one the game can measure for us.

[Trooper909]

Iv allways said i dont care if blufor wins by defult just as long as insurgents dont get nerfed any more and get some new toys all of witch are denied because thay allways win.

so i like the idea ofc.

[OkitaMakoto]

With caches not leading to a WIN, about 99% of the drive to get those caches is gone, and camping will just increase... thats what I see happening if this was implemented. Thats just my assumption

As someone said above, itd probably lead to NO ONE caring about caches except the insurgents who want an RPG/Al Qud and everyone else just trying to get kills/goofing around

On ANY map, if there is no seeming end in sight, the majority of the players will goof off and just fart around, ruining the game for whoever is left trying to actually play. See this all the time when its a stalemate, tickets are dragging on, map gets old in the round, etc.

Caches not leading to an end would probably do more harm than good. But, thats just one man's opinion, there are varying viewpoints

But as recently brought up, a sort of hybrid could be nice.. mixing tickets for INS lives as well as caches... but still, Im happy how the tickets are now.

[Celestial1]

But as recently brought up, a sort of hybrid could be nice.. mixing tickets for INS lives as well as caches... but still, Im happy how the tickets are now.

I agree, on all accounts.

I just like spicing up the discussion... nothing brings new, rational gameplay elements than a lot of PR players trying to come up with their own solutions to an absolutely crazy suggestion.

[(HUN)Rud3bwoy]

Well you said you wanted the opinions of casual gamers.

I consider myself a casual PR pubber, I play about 6-10 hours a week, and that is exactly my problem:
the changes you propose would result in a stalemate lasting many hours. Blufor would stand outside the cities killing insurgents since they can not win the game they might as well kill as many opfor as they can. Opfor(if they have common sense) would not go outside the cities since they know what waits them on the other side. This way insurgeny would become a blinking contest and a game of chicken that would last many hours and a gamer like me wont play that game mode.

The little time I play I like to see the result, and it may be irracional but for me the indicator of how good/bad I performed is the message at the end: XY wins/loses the battle. My objective is to see that message at the end of the round.

Making infinite amount of caches does take away the objective. Try to think about it in other game genres:
-deathmatch fps: which is more fun? if you play till someone reaches a frag limit, or if there is a respawn limit, but only for you...
-real-time strategy: the enemy has infinite rescources, you have a fix amount and cannot collect more and you have to kill as many enemies as you can.

Dont get me wrong other guys might like the idea but those who play 1 hour max(a little more on the weekends) a day it is not good, but then again this is only my opinion.

[009783232]

Dumbing down insurgent weapons is not the answer at all. We already have the features (deviation) that cause poor accuracy while using stereotypical insurgent tactics. Like running and gunning, blasting off at a full squad in full auto, blind firing and firing from the hip, etc. Personally, i'm in the pool of thought that says the teamwork and discipline of the BLUfor forces is not being accurately portrayed in-game, and is causing the opfor to easily walk all over you.

You can say real insurgents have poor accuracy, but in real life, rarely if ever, do they encounter a single coalition troop on his own. If they did, they wouldn't bother running and gunning or blind firing their RPG in a general direction, they would stop, and take their time, aiming in and killing him as easily as he would kill them. Blufor have the tools to get the job done, they just need to do the job correctly.

The issue is here is that when playing multiplayer, the training for the insurgents is exactly equivalent to the training for Americans (on average). This means that insurgency does not play like professional soldiers verses professional soldiers, but more like militia with expensive toys verses militia with small arms.

[TheLean]

I dont like the original idea since it will lead to bluefor not caring so much if they die or not, like the insurgents now. If there are no tickets nothing is stopping bluefor from building a firebase close to the caches and then overwhelm the insurgents with respawns. I like the cautios gameplay we currently have for bluefor.

edit: +1 point for innovative thinking though.

[Masterbake]

I think there should be a time limit on insurgency maps though. It's boring going on a server running insurgency because its the only low ping one with plenty of spaces for clanmates, and then waiting another 2 hours for the next map.