Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
Post Reply
Web_cole
Posts: 1324
Joined: 2010-03-07 09:51

Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Web_cole »

(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.


Image
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:

Image
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.
ImageImageImageImage
dtacs
Posts: 5512
Joined: 2008-12-07 23:30

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by dtacs »

I wholeheartedly agree.

I found my squad on NwA Basrah killing 4 unknowns in one hour. Splitting up the searching pattern allows maps to be covered in a glaringly small amount of time, and with other squads assisting this time can be cut in half.

But alas, many terrific suggestions have been made about Insurgency changes and not a single one has been instituted. I'm confident that the game-mode is not going to change, as it hasn't majorly changed for some 2 years.
Bluedrake42
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2009-07-23 17:52

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Bluedrake42 »

how about you make it so... actually nevermind

I need to finish reading before I post haha
I like this whole idea, sounds good to me
ComradeHX
Posts: 3294
Joined: 2009-06-23 17:58

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by ComradeHX »

I completely agree with removing one of the "unknown" cache.

There should only be one cache in the map at the same time(start as unknown, of course).

Because this will also kill off any ghosting that can happen.

It is stupid how BluFor can just wander around city aimlessly to destroy free cache and win the game without effort.
Tarranauha200
Posts: 1166
Joined: 2010-08-28 20:57

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Tarranauha200 »

There was this suggestion to make unknowns just spawnpoints untill they are known. I think that could work well. Keeping the second cache but not having blufor hunting for unknowns.
Filamu
Posts: 318
Joined: 2006-12-15 14:20

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Filamu »

I think one cache could work well. It will make the insurgency more intense, and with a timer we dont need a second cache to break the stalemate. One problem might be that blufor just wait out the hard caches and hope to get an easier one later. That would be quite boring :P .
Xander[nl]
Posts: 2056
Joined: 2007-05-24 13:27

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Xander[nl] »

I don't think unknowns should be removed, at most the spawn system must be tweaked.

Hunting unknowns and gathering intel is a fun part of the game IMO. I agree that it can break games, especially on maps like Al Basrah or Karbala... but I think that could be fixed by having less impossible caches, and moreover a system that isn't as random.

I personally really hate cave caches (endless grenade and PKM spam yay) so I mostly avoid them and hunt unknowns or gather intel instead. And IMO it's part of being a good BLUFOR team to realise you can't get certain caches and leave them be and just go for the second cache.

Remove these impossible caches and BLUFOR will be less tempted to simply go looking for unknowns. And above all, get a system that spawns caches less randomly; an even amount of difficult caches and easy ones. Many games are ruined because caches keep spawning in open areas making it easy for BLUFOR, or they keep spawning inside strongpoints making it too easy for the INS. A system that devides hard and easy caches more evenly could help out a lot already.
Image
AquaticPenguin
Posts: 846
Joined: 2008-08-27 19:29

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by AquaticPenguin »

'Xander[nl wrote:;1699522']Hunting unknowns and gathering intel is a fun part of the game IMO. I agree that it can break games, especially on maps like Al Basrah or Karbala... but I think that could be fixed by having less impossible caches, and moreover a system that isn't as random.
It's not that fun for the insurgents though, as people searching for unknowns are making their game very boring by not attacking the known. If blufor don't attack the knowns then the insurgents won't defend them, hence the situation where the insurgents are chasing people around the map rather than defending their cache.
Doc.Pock
Posts: 2899
Joined: 2010-08-23 14:53

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Doc.Pock »

Filamu wrote:I think one cache could work well. It will make the insurgency more intense, and with a timer we dont need a second cache to break the stalemate. One problem might be that blufor just wait out the hard caches and hope to get an easier one later. That would be quite boring :P .
Well adding a ticket cost for not destroying the cashe could do the tric as blufor wouldnt want to lose lots of tics if cashe is destroyable and would leave it if it would be impossible to destroy withouth losing more tickets than the cashe makes u lose
Xander[nl]
Posts: 2056
Joined: 2007-05-24 13:27

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Xander[nl] »

AquaticPenguin wrote:It's not that fun for the insurgents though, as people searching for unknowns are making their game very boring by not attacking the known. If blufor don't attack the knowns then the insurgents won't defend them, hence the situation where the insurgents are chasing people around the map rather than defending their cache.
Really depends on the map; on most map with a good team that makes a lot of hideouts it's pretty fun for insurgents to go hunting for lone BLUFOR squads. It's pretty much all I do as INS on maps like Fallujah and Gaza.
Image
Web_cole
Posts: 1324
Joined: 2010-03-07 09:51

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Web_cole »

Tarranauha200 wrote:There was this suggestion to make unknowns just spawnpoints untill they are known. I think that could work well. Keeping the second cache but not having blufor hunting for unknowns.
That could help, but it seems to me if the unknown exists in any form, even if its indestructible or whatever, that doesn't necessarily discourage Blufor from hunting it. For instance, they could find it and C4 and then wait till it becomes known and destroy it. Or something equally exploitative.
Filamu wrote:One problem might be that blufor just wait out the hard caches and hope to get an easier one later. That would be quite boring :P .
That's a good point.
Doc.Pock wrote:Well adding a ticket cost for not destroying the cashe could do the tric as blufor wouldnt want to lose lots of tics if cashe is destroyable and would leave it if it would be impossible to destroy withouth losing more tickets than the cashe makes u lose
That seems to me like heaping negative reinforcement on an already negative situation. What would possibly work better would be to give Blufor a significant enough reward for destroying the cache in order to make it worthwhile for them to attack even considering the tickets they might lose for zero gain. So a 50~ ticket gain for destroying the cache, or something like that.
'Xander[nl wrote:;1699522']I agree that it can break games, especially on maps like Al Basrah or Karbala... but I think that could be fixed by having less impossible caches, and moreover a system that isn't as random.
I don't feel like the reason Blufor don't attack more known caches is because they are impossible. A lot of the time you'll see Blufor squads largely ignore some quite easy or average caches in favour of hunting unknowns. Its simple gamer mentality; why do this more difficult thing, when I can do this really easy thing and still win.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Zrix
Posts: 4425
Joined: 2005-12-02 14:25

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Zrix »

I agree with you Web that INS has issues. Having 2 caches at one time could possibly be kept for a 128p layer.

One thing that could keep BLUFOR from just waiting for good caches could be a ticket punishment for not getting a cache. So for example if the cache disappears after 30min, BLUFOR loses 50 tickets or something. The amount of tickets would have to be tweaked to that it's still better than attacking an impossible cache, but enough to discourage them from not trying.
Image
Xander[nl]
Posts: 2056
Joined: 2007-05-24 13:27

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Xander[nl] »

Maybe do something with the ticket counter then?

Destroying an unknown could not give the ticket boost, or even cost the team tickets; simulation of intel and resources put into finding it.

This way you would be taking a risk only destroying unknowns because you'd be depleting precious tickets and the next (two) cache(s) might be hard to get by.


Right now it's pretty faulty that you can hunt down an unknown without any (significant) ticket loss and get lots of tickets for it in return.
Image
Doc.Pock
Posts: 2899
Joined: 2010-08-23 14:53

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Doc.Pock »

Zrix wrote:I agree with you Web that INS has issues. Having 2 caches at one time could possibly be kept for a 128p layer.

One thing that could keep BLUFOR from just waiting for good caches could be a ticket punishment for not getting a cache. So for example if the cache disappears after 30min, BLUFOR loses 50 tickets or something. The amount of tickets would have to be tweaked to that it's still better than attacking an impossible cache, but enough to discourage them from not trying.

Um thats what i was sayin.
Web_cole
Posts: 1324
Joined: 2010-03-07 09:51

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Web_cole »

Doc.Pock wrote:
Zrix;1699578 wrote:I agree with you Web that INS has issues. Having 2 caches at one time could possibly be kept for a 128p layer.

One thing that could keep BLUFOR from just waiting for good caches could be a ticket punishment for not getting a cache. So for example if the cache disappears after 30min, BLUFOR loses 50 tickets or something. The amount of tickets would have to be tweaked to that it's still better than attacking an impossible cache, but enough to discourage them from not trying.
Um thats what i was sayin.
Well I guess you could feasibly have both. If Blufor gets the cache they get a ticket boost, as it is now. If they don't get the cache before the timer runs out, they lose a bunch of tickets. The carrot and the stick :p

Also, I just found this thread thread on the TG forums where DiscoJedi says:
Remove Unknown Caches
  • Caches should only spawn once enough Intel has been gathered to reveal them.
  • This prevents BluFor squads from stumbling onto unrevealed caches, winning the game without letting the insurgents actually mount a defence.
  • The insurgents will still have a few minutes to setup a defence before the cache location is actually provided to the BluFor.
  • Since the lack of unrevealed caches could mean fewer locations for insurgents to get kits, perhaps a few pickup kits could be scattered around the maps to balance this out.
  • Barring that, some form of kit request might need to be implimented for insurgent maps.
Which actually seems like a simpler, altogether more workable solution than my own, with pretty much the same results.
Last edited by Web_cole on 2011-11-26 16:56, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImageImage
Tarranauha200
Posts: 1166
Joined: 2010-08-28 20:57

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Tarranauha200 »

Web_cole wrote:That could help, but it seems to me if the unknown exists in any form, even if its indestructible or whatever, that doesn't necessarily discourage Blufor from hunting it. For instance, they could find it and C4 and then wait till it becomes known and destroy it. Or something equally exploitative.
They would not be visible caches, just spawnpoints. And when they are unknown you would spawn in random location 50(example) meters from it. So even if they know its there they would neeed to put huge amounts of explosives.
Web_cole
Posts: 1324
Joined: 2010-03-07 09:51

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Web_cole »

Tarranauha200 wrote:They would not be visible caches, just spawnpoints. And when they are unknown you would spawn in random location 50(example) meters from it. So even if they know its there they would neeed to put huge amounts of explosives.
Well that could work I guess. Perhaps its a semantic point, but it does feel like if your going to go that far why even have the spawn point? Yes it would allow the Ins to set up around where the new cache would spawn, but having the cache (+rally point) spawn after Blufor gets intel and then have a 5/10 minute period before it becomes known, would serve essentially the same purpose.

Except it seems to me this fairly random spawn point in the middle of no where would encourage or facilitate Ins players to do what they do now; not bother defending the main objective, the known cache, and go off on their own lone wolfing.

Why not have no 2nd cache or spawn point until the Blufor get intel, which would be the same thing for all intents and purposes, except both the Insurgent and Blufor players should have that purity of focus and be able to concentrate on their main objectives without being distracted.
Last edited by Web_cole on 2011-11-26 19:19, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImageImage
badmojo420
Posts: 2849
Joined: 2008-08-23 00:12

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by badmojo420 »

Web_cole wrote:Except it seems to me this fairly random spawn point in the middle of no where would encourage or facilitate Ins players to do what they do now; not bother defending the main objective, the known cache, and go off on their own lone wolfing.
Except if the known cache is actively being attacked, INS players are less likely to want to run off and do their own thing like happens now.

I think a solution to the camping of the invisible unknown would be to add an overrun feature where if a blufor walks within 10-20m of the cache, it gets overrun and respawns elsewhere. This would also hopefully prevent new caches from spawning in the same compound as a blufor FOB.
Mouthpiece
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2010-05-24 10:18

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Mouthpiece »


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

And I totally agree with everything mentioned above - it is really boring to play an insurgent defending the known from an attack that never comes (or comes just when you have left your post).
Bluedrake42
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2009-07-23 17:52

Re: Insurgency Breakdown and Alteration

Post by Bluedrake42 »

any developer feedback on this?
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”