Project Reality Forums

badmojo420 wrote:I say go back to where both teams had an overwhelming number of objectives(caches) to deal with, that way it doesn't get bogged down at one or two caches but rather splits up the combat into many smaller firefights.

Screw the insurgents who can't defend unknowns.

This this and this.The way it used to be.Pronk this is actually a nerf to blufor trust me.

Mojo I dont remember crashing being the reason for the random spawn and all caches at once removal I remember it being because of whine and I also remember them saying it will never return due to that "realism" argument everyone uses to make insurgents cannon fodder.

Web_cole wrote:Its patently dishonest to suggest that Insurgents "can't defend unknown caches", up until now a large part of the meta game for Insurgency has been "don't defend unknown caches because it gives them away" to the extent that there are server rules about not spawning on unknowns and people will ***** at you for doing so. That is not the same thing as being unable or unwilling.

Did you read the rest of my large wall of text? I talked about the communities hate for spawning on unknowns. And it's specifically that boycott of defending unknowns that led to blufor unknown hunting becoming so popular.

But my comment about "screw those who can't defend" is more to counter the arguments I've gotten when suggesting we go back to a system of more caches, rather than less. People seem to think that if we give the INS more unknowns, we're going to have more undefended unknowns, and massive unknown hunting happening. Maybe that will be the case, but I strongly believe people will deal with it and start defending unknowns again. Not to mention with more caches on the map, 90% of the INS team won't be stacked up on one cache location, instead they'll be more spread out.

So in short when I say "Screw the insurgents who can't defend unknowns." I'm saying screw people who don't want to defend them, people who want the insurgency gamemode to be AAS with 1 cache instead of a flag. They're the type of people who never defend flags in AAS, they're moving PR in the wrong direction.

i really don't think insurgency is broken like some think....its just that the maps that blufor have overwhelming fire power are the ones most often played...for example kokan U.S. army with 2 Kiowas, apc, crow and taliban not having 50cal techis spawn at main vs Canada version which doesn't have the overwhelming fire power where taliban win majority of the time and therefore not played at much. on kokan if you dont go to the quad cannon and recover those techis then expect to lose as taliban.....

same with albasra, you dont see the tank version played that much because insurgents win that version more often than not. karbala with 2 Kiowas, tank and strykers...big blufor advantage, and if you don't get all bridges destroyed on karbala and basra as insurgents...expect to lose no matter which version is playing.

ramiel with 1 Kiowa isnt bad. insurgents have plenty of 50 cal techis that spawn at main, i say insurgent have a decent chance to win that map if hideouts are built and good defenses are in place. im not even sure what the alternate version is for that because its probably not played that much.

so in conclusion, i would like to see some things mentioned in this thread tested but the main problem in my opinion is still map assets favor 1 side or another.

I play Insurgent whenever possible. Actually I play China/Russia whenever possible too. It seems I'm the rare Opfor fan.


(I decided to delete this 5 or 6 sentence chapter. But, below is the conclusion.)

This is the first problem with Broken Insurgency. Players that are eager to win all goes to one side.
And this Treasure hunting or sometime ghosting can be the side effects of eagerness to win. At least sometime I can see it that way.


And to those who argue Blufor is too well armed for Insurgent to win, I think Insurgents are too well armed. I don't know if current armament is representing real life or done so in favor of balance, which I don't like for reality sake. If it's severely unbalanced in real life, I'd like to see it severely unbalanced in PR.
For example Insurgent have almost same number of armed jeep (Technical) as Blufor's armed jeep, which has same armament. They also have Technical with Reoilless rifle (SPG Technical). And in case of UK vs INS, INS Technical obviously has advantage because it maneuvers like straight out of vanilla BF2.
I don't know much about reality of Iraq War other than stuff on Internet and News. And although I hear about Insurgent using IEDs and RPGs,I never heard about Insurgent using Technical.
Also with the pickup kit. You can pick up up to 3 Machine Gun that fires full size rifle round, nearly 7 RPG with 3 rounds each, and Sniper and all those goodness without restriction of Squad/kit ordering. On the other hand, supposedly 'too strong' Blufor, they can't have a squad with 3 LAT kit with 3 rocket each which makes them RPG squad with 9 rockets to salvo, or leet to suddenly go on 10 kill no death sniper mission, or have 2 Anti Tank Grenades that obliterate armored jeep with single hit or, unlimited number of Rifleman AP kit. If anything, Blufor should have the blasting number of LMGs and LATs to salvo not Insurgent because, even with my limited knowledge I can imagine and guess conventional military has more Rockets and Machine Guns than civilians with weapons that they obtain from who knows where.

So, I don't think it's correct to blame Broken Insurgency on Blufor armed better than Insurgents. If Blufor are armed better and wins every time, then that is I guess realistic.
I do understand PR people will say real and unbalanced game will only appeal to few and most will reject it. But if mod goes to balanced, Insurgent will devolve back to BF2 Special Force.


Maybe problem lies in theme of Insurgency mode itself, the cache hunting. Well I don't know really. With my knowlege I can't even tell theme of 'cache hunting' as depiction of Insurgency is one of realistic option or not.

Well it would still be nice to get a bigger diversity weapons, we don't need them all at one. But I can live with one 20MM Bofors techy instead of 3 .50 cal techys. And by the way insurgents have way more things that we think they have, especially Taliban but don't always use them.

Sgt. Mahi wrote:Amen! The man preaches the truth... Nah but really, it's sad to see the insurgency mode falling to pieces because so many only play BLUFOR. I would love to see insurgents get some of their "power" back. Back in the days where we had proper IED's and molotovs... Now that was fun for both sides. Admitted the IED's back then where a bit overpowered but the amount of nerfing it went through is just ridiculous.

Before you say anything against that, I will remind you that BLUFOR were perfectly capable of winning the rounds back then. BLUFOR players cries to much. ... "Oh the molotovs are bugged because they can burn through vehicles, you say?"... "Well don't park your damn CROW humwee 5 ft. from a building if you know the area is hostile, fool!"

Seriously if BLUFOR actually worked together in insurgency, it wouldn't had been necessary to nerf insurgents that much. But EVERYONE wants to be able to steam roll insurgents apparently.

Back in maaaaaaaaaaaayeeeee day. IED's killed people, an the bombcar was to be feared. Them molotov jibber jabber carrying people were always blocking the road and this unknown hunt bull wasn't going on. Why back in mayeeeeeeeeeee day, we had more guys with explosives thannnnnn AKKKKKKs.

And from reading this it would seem some people are not aware of the short range of the RPG but long range of thermal/armor. The RPG was designed with the range of armor in mind and the means to kill them for a reason, was 8 seconds to fire accurately not enough to balance for the range? Seems not since the range is about 1/3 what it should be.

The Only way that "insurgency is broken" is from insurgents getting nerfed due to the whiney children that like to mob onto BLUFOR for the assets and fail with them or lack teamwork. Back in 0.7 when I first started playing all people did was Insurgency BECAUSE IT WAS FUN. Now it's practically heracy. The RPG flew like it was meant to, IED's kept people from tard rushing and people on their toes. Now the IED isn't even that scary, IED's often times are meant to kill vehicles , the old ones got the point across (Fear/area denial). More times than not you'll see armor getting closer to towns now, because the IED is a joke now.

In the desert the force with the most area denial is king. But when you lack sufficient ability to broadcast such a threat to the enemy, area denial does not matter. If the IED's came back about half way towards their former glory to induce that fear factor again and/or the RPG got a slight range increase again, we'd be in business like the old days. It never took one regular RPG to kill a tank, that's reality, so why should it take 1 HE shell to murder a squad or guy with an RPG from far beyond his effective range easily?

badmojo420 wrote:Did you read the rest of my large wall of text? I talked about the communities hate for spawning on unknowns. And it's specifically that boycott of defending unknowns that led to blufor unknown hunting becoming so popular.

We have lift off.

Maybe they could make it like how you spawn a hideout or FOB, right click on the cellphone, place cache somewhere hidden, start the defense. Only problem is you never know where the thing is gonna end up with the BF2 engine, but at least inside a building. (Getting it under that table on Kokan would be hard).

Only thing I see wrong with that is caches spawning in mid air, and the fact that all the placeable stuff has 6 ft of dirt to account for that.

Perhaps make it so that a single known weapons cache moves every 20 minutes with insurgents defending it(majority of players in 100m radius is insurgents, maybe) so single cache that is impossible to attack will not cause insurgents to win, and single cache that is impossible to defend is not guaranteed to die(if blufor is not fast enough or insurgents delayed them somehow). After it moves, it becomes unknown and BluFor has to re-acquired intel points.

No because that causes the insurgents to not make a proper defense since it will replace by the time it is done.

B.Pronk(NL) wrote:No because that causes the insurgents to not make a proper defense since it will replace by the time it is done.

That would mean insurgents are stupid since the cache will be dead within 20 minutes.

Insurgents do not take a long time to set up defenses if people learned that one sapper placing minefield is not enough.

Intervals.

Set the number of intervals randomly before each round, 4-7 min-max.

Set the number of caches like normal, 8.

Only spawn new caches at each interval, spawning 1-3 per interval or actually spawning 3 caches per interval and upping the cache amount to 9 as well as the number of caches for a win for blufor.

only reveal caches within an interval the same method it is currently, with intel points.

Only spawn new caches after the last interval ends. "Intel reports an insurgent resupply from Syria" or "The infidels have taken all our caches, a resupply is coming."

This way the tide of battle shifts back and forth from Ins to Blufor, depending on the number of caches in each interval or the stage of each interval.

I know people have already said it, there should only be 2 caches on the map at a time. One that is Known and the other one is not. The other caches the the Blu-for and Insurgents can't see should not even be there at all.

So when the game starts you have one known, and a un-known. So if the known is destroyed then another cache will spawn on the map somewhere but will not become a known until the 2nd cache that spawned at the beginning is known or has been destroyed.

This would make the Blu-for only be able to to go after 2 caches at once. and since there is only 1 un-known it would be almost impossible to search the whole map.

In real combat you don't have the Blu-for going around looking for weapons, they use the intel they have to make sure they know what there going to face and how to deal with it. Right now I hate playing insurgency because on a lot of maps the Insurgents will lose or it will be very close.

Please fix this in the next release or if it is so important to do it right now release a update (If possible)

BTW can someone post a link to a list of the changes dbzao made?

[R-DEV]BloodyDeed wrote:...As Insurgent you could just stay away from the caches giving no information to the bluefor about the location.

To request players not spawn on unknowns is unrealistic. It always happens no matter how much you implore people not to. Akin to asking your friends to not open your fridge when they know it is full of beer and chicken wings.

Unless you even it out it will always be boring to death on Insurgency side. I too avoid insurgency because deaths are not as penalizing which is not what you want your team to habitualize to. The point of staying alive is lost on players. Often players just implore suicidal actions which decrease your team size more frequently. Made worse by being spread out (on foot) defending multiple caches.

I think the civilian players are impaired way too much. They can't out run a soldier carrying 60-100Lbs back pack. Really?
Last time I checked the civilian populations in Iraq/Afghanistan are hands off and a huge detriment to finding insurgent fighters and weapons caches. They get picked off on ladders, rooftops with virtualy no negatives. Finding a better balance should be the goal.

DDS wrote:To request players not spawn on unknowns is unrealistic. It always happens no matter how much you implore people not to. Akin to asking your friends to not open your fridge when they know it is full of beer and chicken wings.

I was only referring to the "no markers at all" suggestion. If that would be the case you *could* do that, even when its only on "competitive" play.

Only problem is predictable cache locations. Just increase the amount of places cache can spawn. This way blufor "treasure hunting" will be very difficult.

As the Description of Insurgency on Map loading screen says, Insurgent's main objective is to 1.Defend the cache and 2.Ambush Blufor force.

If there is only 1 cache, It will be INS defending a flag vs Blufor taking the flag. Only one front line, just like AAS.
If we have 2 caches, there will be need for Blufor to 'Patrol'. This will give INS a need to 'Ambush' those who patrol.

I see a future where 1 cache is not a success.


(Below was purposely not edited to be 'Easy to read conclusion' to contribute my thought process)
Manually deployed caches (2) + Cache revealed just like now But with larger proximity + Only 1 cache revealed instead of going on 2 revealed could work. I just came up with that idea while reading the thread.

If we are going to give INS manually deployed cache for better hiding, we need to have auto-deploy if not manually deployed in time to avoid cheating by not deploying objective at all.

WAIT! WAIT WAIT WAIT. What am I talking about. We were talking about Treasure hunting/Ghosting problem. Above will not fix it at all. Revealed cache will be always be revealed and create front line just like now. But even if INS have ability to manually deploy cache, if it goes on to map as purple shield it will be ghosted only in better hiding place. So what can be done? Not giving a purple shield to unknown could work. But what if person who deployed it is not communicating with team or worse auto-deployed how would INS team know where unknown is.?

You know what, after all idea of Unknown will not work. We have to be 1 cache but give Blufor motive to patrol and give INS motive to ambush so round will not be one front line war like AAS. Maybe very large proximity marker for Known etc.
Seriously, if Insurgency is turned into 1 cache with current setup, it will be just like AAS front line battle over single objective with 1 team forced to be on defense.

DDS wrote:To request players not spawn on unknowns is unrealistic. It always happens no matter how much you implore people not to. Akin to asking your friends to not open your fridge when they know it is full of beer and chicken wings.

Yes you are correct. And I really think being deprived of 2 LATs 1 LMG and 1 SAW kits are more serious than losing 1 random spawn point. I said this in other related thread also. People don't seem to realize this consequence.

Acemantura wrote:Intervals.

Set the number of intervals randomly before each round, 4-7 min-max.

Set the number of caches like normal, 8.

Only spawn new caches at each interval, spawning 1-3 per interval or actually spawning 3 caches per interval and upping the cache amount to 9 as well as the number of caches for a win for blufor.

only reveal caches within an interval the same method it is currently, with intel points.

Only spawn new caches after the last interval ends. "Intel reports an insurgent resupply from Syria" or "The infidels have taken all our caches, a resupply is coming."

This way the tide of battle shifts back and forth from Ins to Blufor, depending on the number of caches in each interval or the stage of each interval.

Elaborate a little more

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems people are so attached to the watered down AAS game modes now that a lot of you would rather play something that requires less thinking. Insurgency at one point incorporated a LOT of strategy, especially by the insurgents, Mortars and some other thing's have made BLUFOR so comfy they don't seem to patrol at all anymore, Mortars need to be changed so you have to be far enough away from your base that the possibility of actually breaking the supply line/ambushing them is possible. Some maps people build them just at the edge. The intel system needs an overhaul as well, currently insurgents just throw themselves at BLUFOR unlike the old days where attacks had a purpose, thus all I ever hear now is "Let's sit here and intel farm." What am I going to do milk cows and hope they tell me where the bad guys are?

I wouldn't mind seeing mortars removed from blufor. No particular reason, I just don't think they promote they type of gameplay that should be happening on Blufor. Sitting on a FOB blindly dropping mortars on a blue marker is hardly what PR is about in my opinion. Or maybe going back to 150m radius on the marker would help?

-------------

Something else I thought of, perhaps the known cache marker could be coded to only show up when a blufor player(s) enters its radius? So when the blufor get enough intel there would be a message like "Intel has revealed there is 1 cache in the area" and then they know to start patrolling the map looking for a marker to show up. Just something to get more actual recon/patrols happening and less dependence on the magic markers.

Or there should be a method of preventing people from just booting up the editor, snatching a bunch of screenshots with the caches position and plastering it together into a high rez map with marked caches.

One thing is "memorizing" caches but having a map showing you them is kinda retarded.

CroCop wrote:Or there should be a method of preventing people from just booting up the editor, snatching a bunch of screenshots with the caches position and plastering it together into a high rez map with marked caches.

One thing is "memorizing" caches but having a map showing you them is kinda retarded.

I think the only way to prevent this is to implement like five times the amount of possible cache locations. That way there would be no point in looking for unknown, even if you know where it could be, because it takes time to check 40 locations. And even if you find it, you need to check them again for the next unknown

The only thing which would be possible to find the unknowns anway is ghosting, but there is no way you can prevent that, because the insurgents need to know what to defend and where. You can't remove this information. And you can't limit it on one known cache at any time, it would reduce the game to a plain camp'n'rush fest.