Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

[Web_cole]

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

That's a pretty great idea, but it still feels like more of a band aid than a heart bypass, as in it doesn't exactly deal with the underlying problem.

But saying that it could help things an awful lot.

[Mikemonster]

Trouble is that Blufor could camp an Unknown until they get the required Intel.

[spiked_rye]

Trouble is that Blufor could camp an Unknown until they get the required Intel.

Yes, but hopefully it being an unknown, INS would be moving to defend the area and probably spot them. Though yes, it is an issue, but better than it is now, with blufor blowing up unknowns before ins squads even get in the area.

[Murphy]

I apologize in advance if this has been suggested before, I didn't read the more recent posts.

Is it possible to remove the unknown cache and have the 2nd cache spawn only when enough intel has been gathered to make it known? Make it take longer before Blufor can see where it is giving the insurgents more time to consider how to split their forces and give them a chance to setup a few hideouts.

This would also give trigger happy players more incentive to ensure they are not shooting collaborators, otherwise the 2nd cache might not spawn for a while.

[Cassius]

Why should the unkown be removed, because the insurgent team does not defend the unkown, or even worse, actually players get kicked for spawning on the unkown? You want to discourage the blueforce from going for the unkown, defend it even more heavily than the known.

Also it is true, sometimes insurgents wait long time for an engagement sitting on the known. However that can happen in AAS too. In both instances the team seems to be doing such a good job, that the opfor gave up attacking/going for the known.

[Xavo|xXx]

Uh no Cassius, the point of removing the unknown would be so that the Blufor can't deliberately target it instead of the known.
The unknown is meant to be exactly that, a stockpile of weapons that is not known to the Bluforce. The known Cache is the one they're meant to attack because they have intelligence on the whereabouts. You wouldn't search one side of a city, if you knew there was a cache in the opposite side. Except in PR you would, because you know that if there is one cache in one part of the city, there will be another cache in a less defended part of the city.
I can see where you're coming from with the whole defend the unknown idea, but really if that was the intention, it should be a known cache anyway. If you tried to defend an unknown, I can guarantee you it would have the opposite effect that you describe - the Blufor would actively try and take it down...

[spiked_rye]

I can see where you're coming from with the whole defend the unknown idea, but really if that was the intention, it should be a known cache anyway. If you tried to defend an unknown, I can guarantee you it would have the opposite effect that you describe - the Blufor would actively try and take it down...

Okay, but if you just have known casches, then when one becomes known there is a race to get to it by both sides, (blufor having helos will give them a massive advantage). There needs to be some form of unknown so that INS can set up a legitimate defence.

As for weather it should be visible to blufor or not is a question of realism, so scaling the points for an unknown cache depending on how long it has to become known is a happy medium, blufor can get some points for dumb luck, INS are punished for not defending unknowns.

[Psyrus]

Okay, but if you just have known casches, then when one becomes known there is a race to get to it by both sides, (blufor having helos will give them a massive advantage). There needs to be some form of unknown so that INS can set up a legitimate defence.

Er... there's already a 5 minute timer where it's known to the insurgents before the blufor... this would simply be increased to allow the insurgents to set up a proper defence at the next objective. No race involved.

[Web_cole]

Why should the unkown be removed, because the insurgent team does not defend the unkown, or even worse, actually players get kicked for spawning on the unkown? You want to discourage the blueforce from going for the unkown, defend it even more heavily than the known.

Also it is true, sometimes insurgents wait long time for an engagement sitting on the known. However that can happen in AAS too. In both instances the team seems to be doing such a good job, that the opfor gave up attacking/going for the known.

As I've said before in this thread, it seems to me Insurgency doesn't make sense if the Ins team is expected to defend 100% of the caches 100% of the time. If the Ins are expected to split their forces 50/50 at all times then they get rolled over when the full Blufor team attacks any one cache in earnest, at least in my eyes.

It would also appear to make the intel system obsolete; unknown caches are supposed to be "unknown", surely? You could argue it allows for baiting Blufor with fake caches but again, I say if the Ins are tasked with splitting their forces at all times, even for fake caches, they should almost always lose.

[ExeTick]

it should be harder to destroy caches. 3-4 incendiary grenades is not enough. it can easily be destroyed by a 2 man unknown hunting squad.

I would say it should take 7-8 incendiary grenades or 2-3 C4s to destroy a cache. you would be able to react before the cache is going down and it would be harder for bluefor to take it out. (I know some caches are VERY hard to destroy), but thats because infantry squads are not working together every squad attack the cache on there own.

Ive seen 3 squads on NwA working together attacking caches and manage to destroy it. But 1 squad is most certain to die if they attack alone on one of the hard caches.
And those squads usually have apc/tank support.

key to victory is fobs and teamwork.

[Murphy]

Well kilgore the issue at hand is the fact that no one enjoys watching an INS round end without any real attacks on a cache, instead what we have is a handful of attacks on a known area but when repelled the blufor moves onto hunting unknowns to conserve tickets.

I personally don't mind how things are now, if you get your unknowns ganked all round you might have considered defending them after 1/2 got taken down. Alas the vast majority of players feel this game mode is broken due to the fact that rounds can technically end without any shots being fired, as long as insurgents play the game the way it was meant to be played. Affording bluforces an even easier time then they theoretically already have (huge advantage when it comes to equipment and the team is given the freedom to dictate when/where the action goes down, even if they don't want to attack the known) by allowing them to end the round basically walking around enjoying the scenery is not fun for anyone.

There are servers that will kick players for spawning and defending unknowns sighting it as "giving away the unknown", but the reality is if no one spawns there a ninja squad can stroll in unopposed. The shortest and simplest solution would be to remove unknowns until they become know, this forces blufor to pursue the designated objective until there is a 2nd option.

The intel gathered when assaulting the first known will eventually ensure that if this cache is terribly easy to defend (thinking Lashkar cave complexes) bluforces will keep attacking until they have the 2nd cache location. The insurgents have been given ample time to reduce enemy tickets, and if they play is smart the 2nd cache may never spawn. Civilian kits would actually become valued as they can keep the 2nd cache from ever spawning, where as now no one cares because it's just as easy to find where the insurgents are massing (giving away unknown).

[doop-de-doo]

As unknowns become available to BLUFOR after a waiting period of 5 minutes, perhaps the unknown cache should only spawn at the beginning of the 5 minute period?

Purple shield = 5 minutes until BLUFOR are aware of its location

Blue diamond = Known cache.

Nothing else needs to change. How many servers promote active defense of unknowns?


PS: Do insurgents frequently relocate weapon caches IRL? Just out of curiosity.

[illidur]

here are the changes i would make to insurgency. their importance decreases while difficulty to implement increases in order.

1. i have come to the conclusion that one cache is the only way. make it so that the only cache is harder to get intel for making intel more important. and when they do, the marker isn't directly on it. searching for caches and making fake caches is fun.

2. in the case where there is a cache that is impossible to get, thats the map's flaw and those spawns could be removed entirely.

3. i'd make the "cache can't spawn xx distance" thing as small a distance as possible, and not permanent (like right now) if possible (it could spawn there again but not right after).

4. which leads me to another thing that would need a change if possible, the only unknown's first (?) minutes should be invulnerable of being overrun (not mandatory but could cover a couple bad scenarios). so no matter what it has a chance. so it can be defended if it spawns next to an enemy fob and isn't concealed. the blufor would still be gaining an advantage by building random fobs, because it would be known right away, but they probably wouldn't get a easy cache kill if they were there.


i dont see any problems with my suggested method and it also keeps in line with the original insurgency idea. an unknown could still be sought after, but will surely be defended at least. though im sure this would be alot of work. but it is just as played as aas. meaning its a big deal.

[SGT.Ice]

(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.

Other than removing the 2nd cache the 2nd/3rd idea are quite note worthy and would improve insurgency.

Insurgency v2.

[pr|Zer0]

1. That will lead to all caches becoming nigh impossible. When u have IED, artie IED, mines, pipe bombs, nade traps lots of RPG's, BLUEFOR is becoming seriously inferior. Imagine 1 cache inside the city in fallujah or on Korengal

2. Theres no impossible cache, therefore the importance of the 2nd known becomes obvious...to divert the defender's strenght
3. I didnt completely understood that
4. An "invulnerable" cache doesn't mean it cannot be camped by a tank or something thus rendering building defenses useless

Cache timer and decrease radius with IP are very good ideas..now that makes me curious

[spiked_rye]

Removal of the second cache would remove alot of the tactical element from both sides. BLUFOR would have one objective to focus all of thier powerful assets on, and no reason to go anywhere else. INS would have no real reason to be anywhere else on the map as there is no unknown to defend, and no reason for BLUFOR to go off mission to attack INS away from the cache, and thus it's harder to lure BLUFOR into a trap.

It'd rappidly devolve into a stalemate, with 32 ins players in a cluster of buildings, and BLUFOR making massed charges and either winning, or getting wiped out, loosing all thier assets, and sitting around main for 20 min waiting for the assets to spawn.

[Arnoldio]

Simple fix(es).

1. There is only one cache on the map at a time, with the current mechanics.

2. There is 2 caches at a time, but the unknown doesnt phisically spawn UNTIL its known, its just a spawnpoint for the INS to get prepared.

Now, the final, and i think most innovative option.

3. Two caches spawn, together in a 50-200 m radius, with only one marker in the vicinity. Using the same mechanic, that they spawn even if not known. Now BLUFOR doesnt have a single point to attack, its spreads over the area, but its still not so stretched as now, as a bonus point, you CAN hund unknown, but its is going to be swarming with insurgents anyway. 2 flies in one swat. But it might happen that BLUFOR once taking out one cache, would quickly seize the other one, so maybe increasing the cache count required should be raised, or maybe not. So, cache bundles, but larger area, feels more like a combat zone.

[illidur]

1. That will lead to all caches becoming nigh impossible. When u have IED, artie IED, mines, pipe bombs, nade traps lots of RPG's, BLUEFOR is becoming seriously inferior. Imagine 1 cache inside the city in fallujah or on Korengal

2. Theres no impossible cache, therefore the importance of the 2nd known becomes obvious...to divert the defender's strenght


there are a few caches on some maps that are VERY hard to take even with half the enemy defending it. but those are maps that are imo broken in comparison to others.

3. I didnt completely understand that

its a current cache spawning mechanic making it easy for me and others to find unknowns

4. An "invulnerable" cache doesn't mean it cannot be camped by a tank or something thus rendering building defenses useless

it would still be killable, just the spawnpoint couldn't be overrun for a set time.

Cache timer and decrease radius with IP are very good ideas..now that makes me curious

my reply in bold.

there are ways with more than 1 cache but might not work...

like if there was going to be 2 caches, perhaps the 2nd should pop up with enough intel and never becomes known unless the known goes down. so the blufor won't actually know if the next cache is actually on the map or not. then with further intel it does become known and repeat the process. if the known goes down before an unknown spawns, spawn an unknown and reset the intel.

i think intel needs to be more important in either case, which leads to the civi being more important. atm civis are killed without fear because currently the caches are there no matter what and that is the only objective.

[sweedensniiperr]

2. There is 2 caches at a time, but the unknown doesnt phisically spawn UNTIL its known, its just a spawnpoint for the INS to get prepared.

Or maybe you can only spawn on the "unknown" when it's been compromised but hasn't showed up for the blufor yet.

[Web_cole]

Removal of the second cache would remove alot of the tactical element from both sides. BLUFOR would have one objective to focus all of thier powerful assets on, and no reason to go anywhere else. INS would have no real reason to be anywhere else on the map as there is no unknown to defend, and no reason for BLUFOR to go off mission to attack INS away from the cache, and thus it's harder to lure BLUFOR into a trap. .

It seems where you see complexity I see utter chaos. Yes, the current system can allow for Ins ambushes etc (no more or less than any of the changes proposed in this thread would allow for however) and yes "fake caches" would be more difficult under some of these proposed changes (but would still be possible to achieve). The difference would be we would have a game mode where the main objective actually matters, and where the Ins team are rewarded for playing the game like its PR, and not CoD on a x500 scale.

Simple fix(es).

1. There is only one cache on the map at a time, with the current mechanics.

2. There is 2 caches at a time, but the unknown doesnt phisically spawn UNTIL its known, its just a spawnpoint for the INS to get prepared.

Now, the final, and i think most innovative option.

^ A good summation of most of whats gone before in this thread.

3. Two caches spawn, together in a 50-200 m radius, with only one marker in the vicinity. Using the same mechanic, that they spawn even if not known. Now BLUFOR doesnt have a single point to attack, its spreads over the area, but its still not so stretched as now, as a bonus point, you CAN hund unknown, but its is going to be swarming with insurgents anyway. 2 flies in one swat. But it might happen that BLUFOR once taking out one cache, would quickly seize the other one, so maybe increasing the cache count required should be raised, or maybe not. So, cache bundles, but larger area, feels more like a combat zone.

And an interesting alternative.