Project Reality Forums

I'm not sure how others feel about this, but when playing insurgency currently it often feels as if there is little incentive for BluFor to push early for the caches. An experienced team on BluFor will know to hold back on their forces, get kills from long range and split the defenders in half following the reveal of the second cache. This is largely possible due to BluFor having a really high amount of tickets initially, and they do gain a fair amount after a cache is destroyed.

The problem with this is that, virtually it doesn't matter how well the Ins team plays(or how bad BluFor does), it's always going to be a long battle, which works against the Ins team from the gameplay perspective but it keeps wearing on BluFor as well when you know you've lost the match already but there are still another 200 tickets that need to be depleted in order for the next round to start.

If we're looking Fallujah West for example, the game starts with 550 tickets for BluFor, plus another 90 tickets from a total of 4 caches for a total of 640 tickets. My suggestion would be to reduce the initial amount of tickets for BluFor down to 350 tickets, and increase the gain from a cache to 100 for a total of 650 tickets.

In the end this is probably more of a psychological trick, but it gives a sense of urgency to the actions BluFor undertakes, they cannot afford to lose too much and still win the game. On the flipside it makes the caches much more valuable to Ins as well, the more caches you hold, the less opponents you have to kill. And while you may think that an initial ticket counter of 350 is quite a lot still, a 50 man strong team is going to burn through these much faster than most expect, Burning Sands eg. with its 500 tickets doesn't last more than 35-40 minutes typically.

You guys think it'd be worth a shot?

An other idea, make the additional ticket for destroying the cache variable.

For example, if bluefor have 200+ tickets remaining, only add 50 tickets.
If bluefor have less than 100 tickets, add 80 tickets
If bluefor have less than 50 tickets, add 100 tickets.

It could help to give a chance to bluefor, and if bluefor is too bad, adding 25 lifes more won't change the round duration too much.

This could be easily tested in a few private sessions really. Seems sensible also.

I like the sounds of this idea, the opening of many Insurgency rounds does feel quite leisurely on Blufors behalf, due to the popular divide and conquer strategy. A lower initial ticket amount would also kill those games where Blufor's clearly lost about half way in and everyone just has to gruel through another pointless hour of hopeless gunfights and re-spawns.

It's a good idea, but destroying the cache can't be childs play with those numbers. I mean the team split in the 2 cache system. It reduces teamwork because you might have 2 caches 1-3km apart and it doesn't make sense.

Insurgency should be reverted to 0.98 dbmod style: 1 cache at a time. I can't emphasize how much better insurgency was with 1 cache. It was much more engaging, less broken and all over fun for both teams. You would have to look at cache locations but I think generally it worked well as it was.

If the cache was harder to destroy, ofc blufor would need a lot of tickets at the start, but the reward for killing one could be bigger as well.

viirusiiseli wrote:Insurgency should be reverted to 0.98 dbmod style: 1 cache at a time. I can't emphasize how much better insurgency was with 1 cache

The feedback I gathered with my insurgency test is that we can't have a single objective. Concentrating 100p in a single location makes it a clusterfuck and kills the FPS for many players.

Regarding this idea, everything to make the current insurgency rounds to end faster is a plus in my books.

Maaaaaybe a slow bleed for bluefor, with a delay of 5 minutes from round start and for every cache destroyed they get the ticket bonus and the bleed stops for another 5 minutes and then continues. Idk, just an idea.

And remove thermals, or make them realistic..

LEGIYA wrote:And remove thermals, or make them realistic..

Thermals as they are, are less powerful ingame than IRL.

They can see even where vehicles have driven from several hours after, there is no blur like we have ingame etc...

And then we have this IRL as well

[R-CON]UTurista wrote:The feedback I gathered with my insurgency test is that we can't have a single objective. Concentrating 100p in a single location makes it a clusterfuck and kills the FPS for many players.

Maybe test it again or something xdd

Current way makes no sense either, as it just ends up as an unorganized spread out shitfest.

I rather have 20fps than the current garbage

ps. you also killed fps for many people forcing high effects, medium lighting and terrain xD