Suggestions to improve Insurgency.

[ComradeHX]

What if the tank doesn't care about intelligence markers or points and just kills the Collaborator out in the open? Even though the tank could of drove up next to the Collaborator and the driver could have hopped out and arrested the Collaborator. Points will not change people's attitudes.

If they do not care, they lose politically and turn everyone in the PR world against that immoral nation(whichever one it may be).

Very realistic.

[BenHamish]

er ...


wat

[Rissien]

Armor shouls never do that, more often than no theres an insurgent in hiding just waitinf for that to happen.

[Mouthpiece]

In my opinion, Insurgency can be improved. By improved I mean (as one noted earlier in this topic) "playing this game like it's meant to be played, example: a typical/mosteffective ins inf squad should consist of a SL, collaborator, AR, LAT, rifleman(ammo), sapper/rifleman". I understand that Insurgency mode is asymmetrical warfare therefore the squad composition should not be the same as AAS, but, for example, when I'm loosing as ins usually I don't see a lot of squads effectively countering BLUFOR by doing teamwork at least on a squad basis (by using kits in effective manner, etc.). I myself as an insurgent tend to play carelessly and sometimes semi-nonseriously (it can turn into a madhouse if not moderated properly), I think it's somewhat because of the fact that your life isn't much worth as an insurgent, and, yeah, the current system, for example, the limitless sappers and almost limitless rpg's somewhat provokes/encouriges this non-serious attitude - like, people beeing really careless with an RPG kit. But should Insurgency be improved? That's another question, and a hard one.

IMHO, improvements could be done by means similar to those provided by the author of this topic.

[BenHamish]

Just a word on these punishments for killing a Collaborator:


If you shoot civilians, you will face several penalties:

- After your next death you will re-spawn 120 seconds later per civilian shot (stacks up to 5 minutes additional delay) Solution, go for that toilet break/get some food. 5 mins later and ready to rumble again.
- You will not be able to request any limited kits for 10 minutesSolution: 'Hey [random] pls dude can u request me a Crewman kit? Im in apc sqd'.
- Your score is reduced to 0 and the kill will not be listed on the scoreboard The K:D ratio will be there - ZOMG I GOT 31 killz to 1 death! Ace!
- Your team loses 10 intelligence points So what? I got a mad K:D and we found the caches anyway because they fired RPGs from them. This one time, we acually didn't find any caches, but it was cool because we totally owned the insurgents.

[Murphy]

When I play as Collaborator I purposely throw myself into Blufor fire any chance I get, and I've become fairly good at it. With your proposed kick/ban rule I could easily clear Blufor support not only from the battlefield but from the entire server. It makes absolutely no sense at all, the suggestion is well over the top and having people BANNED for playing within server rules is absurd (no one is base-raping, no one is trolling/flaming, and no one is stealing assets so I think a kick/ban is extremely unjustified and just plainly malicious).

If you're tired of being killed by Blufor don't go Collab, it's obviously not a role everyone is comfortable with especially in an FPS game. It's more of a thinking mans weapon, and if the Blufor aren't thinking they are losing, but having kick/ban mechanisms because you're tired of being ganked by Blufor newbs doesn't make sense.

The kit is fine the way it is, you know what you're getting yourself into when you request the kit so don't ruin server populations because you don't want to get killed as a civi anymore.

The only suggestion that does not appear well thought out is the kick/ban one, the rest make quite a bit of sense.

[mat552]

There were four of us working together to disrupt BLUFOR's ability to take down the cache. With a combined effort, we all died as martyrs 10 times. Take note that means that BLUFOR has -100 Intel Points. To make up for that amount alone would take 100 kills of Insurgents or 10 arrests. Also, we did not lose a single cache the entire round with both of the caches being out in the open on rooftops. If we had been arrested rather than shot, BLUFOR most likely would have dominated us that round. .

It is HIGHLY unlikely that coalition forces would have 'dominated' you that round. If you truly did hold those two caches all round, that means the level of incompetence demonstrated by the coalition forces you were facing was so high, the placement of caches had nothing to do with it. It is statistically impossible for you to hide the unknown the entire round, but it isn't impossible for you to defend both for the whole round. Your kills as collaborators may have delayed the discovery of that second cache, but by no means did you prevent it.

Unknown caches suffer one of three fates, always:

1. They are happened upon, undefended, and destroyed.
2. They are happened upon, defended, fought over, and defended.
3. They are happened upon, defended, fought over, and destroyed.

At some point, enough kills take place OR the knowledge of the location is common enough that everyone knows where it is regardless. The end result is the same. Collaborator kills do not effect the outcome of any public game, and only a supremely lucky organized team gains any extra help from a kill. One careless RPG gunner is worth a literally infinite amount of intel points, positive or negative.

Eventually, after enough searching, coalition troops will always find caches, because there are a limited, fixed number of cache spawn locations.

[Operator009]

Other than revising collaborator roles a LITTLE, there is not very much that can be done to improve on PRBF2's Insurgency Mode. This is mostly due to the fact that there are a LOT more than the maximum like 4 civilians you find in PR in any given server. This is a result of using the limited BF2 engine.

Wait for Arma2. Civi bots and an already reworked 'capture and secure' arrangement spell out a formula for victory. Insurgency has always been PR's staple mode, like how Counter Strike had bomb defuse mode. They pioneered that shit and in return, it defined their game. No one had goal bases player vs player combat before CS (other than the run of the mill CTF round...), and now its basically all there is. No one plays deathmatch anymore, players are much more complex than they used to be. They require a sense of accomplishment, a clear victory condition that is explained in more than one sentence.

The bottom line is that there will never really be enough civilian players to simulate a realistic scenario.

[BenHamish]

That's very true Operator.. It did occur to me that the Civvy kit would only really work if there were lots of bots being civvy, so the Human player was indistinguishable (until he started aiding the insurgency).

I played Ramiel the other day, and there was a cache being bitterly (and successfully) defended from Blufor. There were a fair few civvies (logic being, spawn civvy and then pick up a kit on the cache) using such tactics as standing on technicals.

There are two ways of looking at it:

1 - That was ridiculous. Why should a Blufor player be [slightly] punished for gunning down a load of civvys playing 'shield' to a technical.

2 - It was ridiculous for Blufor to be using Kiwas and strykers to put down heavy, indescriminate fire onto an urban situation.

I did feel for the guy piloting the Kiowa, who was getting very frustrated (global chat..). That said, however, Are Hydras suitable for use in a built-up area..?

With regards to the infantry tactics, the fact that a civvy can just pick up a Ins kit when his mate dies must have made attacking the cache even harder (but possibly more 'realistic'?). Blufor really did spend a long time attacking this cache, and I wonder if it was actually possible for them to capture it. (They resorted to a black-hawk dropping C4 as is tradition, but it got shot down ... 'Failhawk').

[HMARS]

Perhaps collaborators might lose their protection if they stand in close proximity to armed ins for some length of time? Just a thought.

[Mouthpiece]

Perhaps collaborators might lose their protection if they stand in close proximity to armed ins for some length of time? Just a thought.

Yes, it would be logical if a normal human beeing (civy) would run for his life in a gunfight situation. So yeah, a guy without a gun (possible civy) standing next to a bunch of insurgents who are firing at blufor positions by my books would count as insurgent. Don't know what are the ROE in this situation tho.

[Operator009]

I just finished a round on the 24/7 Kokan servers and it occured to me that hydras rape caches. It takes 21 hydras to the building the cache is in the destroy it. How do you find the BUILDING? Well, its a 30m radius from the intel mark, so yeah, its ON the mark. Is hydra damage to caches going to be fixed or what? Cause the same kiowa killed 6/7 caches by itself.

[Dev1200]

Shouldn't this be in the Feedback section?

Indeeed.

[Lange]

That's a pretty good idea. Hmm, possibly have it set to when a Collaborator is within 10 meters of an armed Insurgent, he/she goes out of the ROE.

I really like that idea because one of the main problems now is that civis are used for no more than dicking around or exploit and that would instantly remove a lot of it, It may be possible to code too. Would be nice for dev comment?

Also I really like a lot of your suggestions in the beginning, and looking at the main problem with civilians again, exploitation unable to be 100M from a cache will help this too will likely not make tanks and accidently kill civilians, as ins targets with many hold up in buildings that are near caches, so these too ideas are on to something to virtually eliminate this problem, make civi shields hard or impossible.

The civi should not be removed from PR because it impliments another level of strategy not seen in the game and someday when done in a more polished way will make people think more before shooting. And has many have pointed out current penalties can either work harshly or not at all due to how broken the civi system is. Mostly the penalty means nothing but we should make it where civis can't exploit gameplay so the penalties can be harsher where in most cases the civilian will have to be plain as day and seperated from all other threats so shooting at him would be for little reason or threat to you and should have punishments like you described.

On a seperate note I agree with limiting ins abilities to destroy vehicles with sappers, and im actually working on a idea to limit ins in other ways but also limit the bluefor as well with less tickets and harsher penalties for death. so shooting a civi and having ticket loss and such could play into this as well as a general idea.

When reworked I think the civi should be able to place markers and be a "informant" or even renamed to be called as such, possibly take away the medic role and give that to another kit if you go as far with the "not being within 10M" idea.

Another good idea maybe would be to have a civilian kit that is not a collaborator rather just unarmed with nothing to simulate even though in small numbers normal civilians, with no other role.

Lastly Absolutely remove rocks from current civi as it tends to just piss off coalition players due to harassment and rocks can actually kill at times.

Let me know what you think of these ideas.

[Firepower01]

The only thing I think needs to be changed about the ROE is civilians being killed by mortars. I've seen them run into mortar strikes to cause negative points to the enemy.

[Lange]

The only thing I think needs to be changed about the ROE is civilians being killed by mortars. I've seen them run into mortar strikes to cause negative points to the enemy.

Agreed, also I forgot to include that in my list, I think the amount of infinite mortars right now is rediculous for one thing, and maybe if its possible to code can't be within 100M of a cache idea is implimented that would reduce the unfairness, and mostly out of your control civis killed by mortars. Maybe just make no punishment for that because civis should not operate in a zone where your team is at anyway that could be mortared, on this im not sure though.

I think less mortared being fired may be a compromise both ways with that, if you fire less then its less likely youll kill a civi or a civi can run into them.