Remove 'losing' from Insurgency

[Celestial1]

This is a bit radical of a suggestion, but I thought it needs to be brought out (I think it definitely needs to be discussed directly, rather than out-right suggested to be added).
What if you couldn't lose (as the BluFor) in Insurgency?

My proposal is as follows:

Insurgent/Taliban team no longer has a reasonable 'tickets' system. Either it be removed completely somehow, or make the tickets an extreme amount. The BluFor team would have their usual ticket count.

Instead of the BluFor team trying to get '10 caches', they will now attempt to get 'as many as possible' in the time allotted. Their tickets would remain the same so that a reckless team may lose quickly by being killed frequently and losing assets, whereas a smart team can elongate their time by playing safely and strategically.

Everything else would remain more or less the same; instead of it being a race to get 10 weapon caches before the tickets run out, it would be more of a test to see how many caches they can possibly eliminate in the area before they wear out their welcome in the area.


The entire point of this is to remove the concept of 'winning' insurgency. I think that because of this want to 'win' a lot of strange habits are developing. In example: Camping far out of the city for far longer than necessary, even when they have learned the location of the cache; Using an area attack on the location of the final cache to pull off victory even in the face of low tickets, just because it can be done. While it won't necessary stop these tactics, it could reduce them or make them be used more tactically; instead of saving that artillery for the last cache, how about we use it on the one we are being really pummeled at. Instead of sitting out here and shooting up insurgents, how about we go in and try to get at that cache?




But here's the big questions I have to ask:

Will the average player (you) enjoy this?
Will the average player see the inability to 'lose' as an incentive to play carefully to extend the time they have to get more caches, rather than work towards the cache solely to get one more cache down?
Will the average player see the inability to 'lose' as an incentive to work more towards the cache instead of playing carefully solely to avoid ticket losses?
How do you feel this will balance out the game mode?
Do you believe that instead of "insurgents/blufor are/is overpowered" being the mainstay of insurgency feedback, it could be more often that you hear "our team just wasn't as organized/lucky that round, only got a few caches" or "we did a great job that round, coordinated great and managed to get over 10 caches!"?

But biggest of all are these two:
How would you feel about not being able to 'win', and only be able to get a 'score' for the round? Do you feel that winning is far too good of a feeling to let go? Do you feel that losing, even by small amounts, feels like so much of a let-down?
How crazy do you think I am for suggesting this? (yes, this is a mostly serious question)

[LithiumFox]

I like the concept. Would definitely like the idea... but... yeah.. make it so that it's impossible for BluFor to "win"....

maybe at most a point where the round kind of ends at a random point in time? You have no idea how many caches you need? XD

[Tannhauser]

From your POV, it sounds like an awesome idea.
From the POV of an average player, it'll discourage them from playing seeing as there won't be an immediate and ''easy'' goal.

It's a risk to take, and risks have been taken at each release of PR, wish ye luck!

[Celestial1]

From your POV, it sounds like an awesome idea.
From the POV of an average player, it'll discourage them from playing seeing as there won't be an immediate and ''easy'' goal.

Well, that's what I had hoped against. My thought was that having a cache as the matter at hand being the objective of the moment, instead of 'winning' being the broad objective it is. I thought that maybe focusing the aspect of winning being the battle over each cache would be more beneficial.

Not that I don't think that you could be right, just mentioning my original thoughts on it. I'd like to hear from some 'average players' and see if they think the same way.

(Totally unrelated question: Did you ever find your ducky, Tannhauser?)

[flem615]

It sounds cool and more realistic, but removes some motivation for the BluFor to do anything. I think it's a good idea, but it needs some tweaking on the finer details

[Celestial1]

It sounds cool and more realistic, but removes some motivation for the BluFor to do anything. I think it's a good idea, but it needs some tweaking on the finer details

Well, isn't the motivation to get the caches?

In the current iteration of insurgency, that is the motivation; it's just that you want to get exactly 10 of them. There's still a limit on the amount of tickets the BluFor can use up but there's nothing that 'ends the round quicker' on insurgency as it is besides actually getting the 10 caches (which frequently enough is not the case).

So, why would it be any different in iteration?

(Just making it clear, I'm not trying to berate you for your comment, just trying to get you to elaborate a bit on why you believe that so I know what to change about it. )

[badmojo420]

I like the idea, but the part about nobody winning or losing. I don't know. It would turn into a team deathmatch thing. With people caring more about their k/d ratios than what their teams performance was like.

Not that i don't like it going on until the tickets are gone or time is up. But what would the coalitions incentive be to get any caches at all. Or the insurgents to defend them. If they're just an added bonus, it'll just turn into an epic 3hr spawn camping session for the coalition forces.

Perhaps a double cache limit game mode. For example 10 caches would be the number you need in order to win the game at the end of the time limit. And a random 20-30 caches will end the game instantly and blufor win. Opfor win when they run blufors' tickets to 0 or finish the game with the blufor destroying less than 10 caches.

I don't know how easy that would be to code. But thinking about that gave me another idea. Removing the part about more than 10 caches, you could simply give the insurgents a normal penalty of 1 ticket for dying, and up the cache value to something crazy like 100. That way, you could setup the map so if blufor has 300 tickets to start. The insurgents would have around 1300. So, if the blufor kill 1,300 opfor without leaving their main, they win of course that would never happen. So they'll have to go out and destroy 10 caches, each one costing the insurgents 100 tickets. Leaving them with 300 if they were all hiding in Mohammads secret cave for the whole round. Which again would never happen. As it would be way easier to defend 1 cache than prevent 100 of your buddies from dying.

Of course all of these tickets numbers are just an example, maybe a cache should only be worth 10 tickets for opfor, so the opfor would only get an additional 100 tickets to account for cache losses. It would also encourage people to abandon the cache if it means losing a lot of lives. Which would be a nice change. Intelligence is a great system for automated cache location to keep the battles centralized, but they're not a very good incentive for an individual player to stay alive. With kills counting towards the final outcome, the opfor would no longer have the ability to send countless numbers of forces like zombies towards blufor lines, as long as they keep just 1 cache alive in the end. They could even let all the caches be destroyed, and be faced with worrying about how many tickets they have versus the blufor. And have no free logistics line and spawn points. It could turn into blufor camping the opfors spawns at the end. But that would be similar to finishing a game of AAS and capping out their main base. A reward for finding all 10 caches.

The hard part would be finding a nice balance between cache value and the value of an insurgent versus the value of a blufor. Not to mention mixing in the system of blufor vehicles costing tickets, but not opfor. Still, it has the foundation for a good system i believe.

[Outlawz7]

I think the reason why Insurgents get 100 tickets is because each cache is worth 10, so after it gets destroyed, the 10 tickets go from Ins/Tal to the BLUFOR team, so if it was worth 100 we'd have an issue.
Don't QFT me though, just a flashback dropping into my head, and there's no point in having the opfor ticket slowed down, so there might be a chance for BLUFOR to win if they kill them all, which would probably make good grounds for every round of Insurgency to last 4 hours.

I do like the idea of destroying as many caches as possible rather than predetermined number, but if that was going to happen, I'd give BLUFOR something like 50 tickets and make it so for the first 30-45 minutes they couldn't lose any of them (while still dying of course) so they could gather enough tickets depending on how good or lucky they would be and when the timer goes up, they'd start losing the tickets for each death and destroyed vehicle as normal and would have to work with what they managed to accomplish in the first part of the round when they tickets were frozen. Of course on pubs the idea would completely destroy the teams made out of pilots and snipers going 'zomg wut'

[SkaterCrush]

The problem is that bluFOR looses too much, they should be winning more (or at least 50/50) because Insurgents can't shoot for ****, Taliban or Iraqi (or Somali for that matter), but that isn't a problem in-game. All I think needs to happen is a massive recoil increase for the Insurgent rifles. Sorry I just don't like this idea. I think the devs need to change some insurgent related stuff to make it more balanced

[Outlawz7]

The problem is that bluFOR looses too much, they should be winning more (or at least 50/50) because Insurgents can't shoot for ****, Taliban or Iraqi (or Somali for that matter), but that isn't a problem in-game. All I think needs to happen is a massive recoil increase for the Insurgent rifles. Sorry I just don't like this idea. I think the devs need to change some insurgent related stuff to make it more balanced

It is equal, it's not in guns, it's in players and teams, also worst idea ever.

[RedAlertSF]

I like insurgency as it is, no need to change. Removing losing might make BLUFOR just more lazy and more ineffective.

Only improvement I want is on RPGs. Either restore their damage back to 0.85 values, or deviation. Not both, though.

[badmojo420]

The problem is that bluFOR looses too much, they should be winning more (or at least 50/50) because Insurgents can't shoot for ****, Taliban or Iraqi (or Somali for that matter), but that isn't a problem in-game. All I think needs to happen is a massive recoil increase for the Insurgent rifles. Sorry I just don't like this idea. I think the devs need to change some insurgent related stuff to make it more balanced

Dumbing down insurgent weapons is not the answer at all. We already have the features (deviation) that cause poor accuracy while using stereotypical insurgent tactics. Like running and gunning, blasting off at a full squad in full auto, blind firing and firing from the hip, etc. Personally, i'm in the pool of thought that says the teamwork and discipline of the BLUfor forces is not being accurately portrayed in-game, and is causing the opfor to easily walk all over you.

You can say real insurgents have poor accuracy, but in real life, rarely if ever, do they encounter a single coalition troop on his own. If they did, they wouldn't bother running and gunning or blind firing their RPG in a general direction, they would stop, and take their time, aiming in and killing him as easily as he would kill them. Blufor have the tools to get the job done, they just need to do the job correctly.

[Outlawz7]

Only improvement I want is on RPGs. Either restore their damage back to 0.85 values, or deviation. Not both, though.

They're reverting them back to 0.85 according to LeadMagnet in another thread IIRC

[SkaterCrush]

Since returning, I've only played about with 10 pug squads (out of the 100 or so games I've played since i got back). I found a group of guys who love playing bluFOR on Insurgency, and we played a lot together. Each game we usually destroyed about 5-7 caches before we lost. Yes it probably is what you guys are saying. If that is the problem then it needs to be fixed, because I am tired of losing 80% of the time with a few decent squads playing.

[Cheditor]

Skater insurgents dont normally kill at long range, they normally kill at close range, 50m, alot of blufor players think they are indestructable with their technology, no an AK47 will kill an M4/M16/SA80 in CQB. And i dont get why so many people are complaining about loosing insurgency, i see insurgents loosing more to be honest.

I don't like this idea as how many people play PR to go "lets see how close to winning we can get" no you play to win, if you take the objective out of the game people get lost and confused and people get the idea whats the point.

[IAJTHOMAS]

What would be the point of going for caches at all, if there were no concept of 'winning'? There would be no incentive to look for them, and no disincentive to stop Blufor from finding a nice spot and blasting away to their hearts' content.

[SkaterCrush]

Skater insurgents dont normally kill at long range, they normally kill at close range, 50m, alot of blufor players think they are indestructable with their technology, no an AK47 will kill an M4/M16/SA80 in CQB. And i dont get why so many people are complaining about loosing insurgency, i see insurgents loosing more to be honest.

Well of course. Bigger round=more damage=faster kill, not including full auto>3 round burst. And most engagements in urban CQC maps are at about 50m. I mean the new SAW (scoped) is pointless on most maps besides Archer and Korengal (even then only when I'm doing outpost defence)

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

...

I don't know how easy that would be to code. But thinking about that gave me another idea. Removing the part about more than 10 caches, you could simply give the insurgents a normal penalty of 1 ticket for dying, and up the cache value to something crazy like 100. That way, you could setup the map so if blufor has 300 tickets to start. The insurgents would have around 1300. So, if the blufor kill 1,300 opfor without leaving their main, they win of course that would never happen. So they'll have to go out and destroy 10 caches, each one costing the insurgents 100 tickets. Leaving them with 300 if they were all hiding in Mohammads secret cave for the whole round. Which again would never happen. As it would be way easier to defend 1 cache than prevent 100 of your buddies from dying.

Of course all of these tickets numbers are just an example, maybe a cache should only be worth 10 tickets for opfor, so the opfor would only get an additional 100 tickets to account for cache losses. It would also encourage people to abandon the cache if it means losing a lot of lives. Which would be a nice change. Intelligence is a great system for automated cache location to keep the battles centralized, but they're not a very good incentive for an individual player to stay alive. With kills counting towards the final outcome, the opfor would no longer have the ability to send countless numbers of forces like zombies towards blufor lines, as long as they keep just 1 cache alive in the end. They could even let all the caches be destroyed, and be faced with worrying about how many tickets they have versus the blufor. And have no free logistics line and spawn points. It could turn into blufor camping the opfors spawns at the end. But that would be similar to finishing a game of AAS and capping out their main base. A reward for finding all 10 caches.

The hard part would be finding a nice balance between cache value and the value of an insurgent versus the value of a blufor. Not to mention mixing in the system of blufor vehicles costing tickets, but not opfor. Still, it has the foundation for a good system i believe.

I believe this is the most balanced suggestion. It allows for the most different, read strategic/tactical decisions, ways to win for both teams.

[Celestial1]

IF YOU PLAN TO POST IN THIS THREAD, PLEASE THOROUGHLY READ BOTH THE ORIGINAL POST AND THIS POST.

Some people seem to be MISUNDERSTANDING a few things of my suggestion. Let me try to put them in as simple terms as possible, as I know I tend to get long-winded in my initial explanations. (Perhaps it would also help if I fully understood what I was saying half the time... naming the thread remove 'losing' from insurgency probably wasn't the best idea)



1. The BluFor are still bound by a defined number of tickets they can use for the round. They are not ticketless, they are not invincible, they are still able to be 'beaten'... It's just a matter of how many caches will they destroy before they are beaten?

"Winning/Losing" is not removed entirely... think of it more as playing an Arcade game. You get points, you enjoy playing, you made it through some levels of the game. But you may not have achieved the high score. You can still play to win, it's just that there isn't a point in time where the game says "You have enough points to reach the hi-score, stop playing"

2. The BluFor's motivation for getting the cache is just as it always has been; getting the cache, destroying it, and getting the 'point' for it. I'm not sure why you believe that the BluFor will be more likely to sit around, or that the cache's will become a 'side-objective'.

"It would turn into a team deathmatch, with people caring more about their k/d ratios than what their teams performance was like."

I don't understand where this view is coming from. The BluFor still has a ticket count; they can be beaten by the insurgents; a soldier dieing will STILL cause a ticket to be lost for BluFor. Nothing is being changed in that regard. They can still lose the round due to ticket loss. When BluFor reaches 0 tickets, they still lose.

The insurgents, however, cannot be 'beaten' overall. You, as BluFor, can destroy their weapon caches, but another weapon cache is just waiting to be destroyed. The insurgents are a force in the area; they are the every-day citizens fighting back at what they believe are oppressors, and aren't going to 'disappear' from the area in all likelyhood.






The only other way I can describe it to you is through the game's system of winning. Imagine insurgency as it is, only the insurgents don't actually lose tickets when a cache is destroyed. That is the basic concept of the change.

(The insurgents may actually have some kind of ticket count solely for the purpose of the end-round scores showing how many caches were destroyed.)


And finally, please, refrain from posting unrelated material (I want the old RPG back! Insurgent weapons need to ___! BluFor wins/loses too much! etc) in this thread. Keep it to the idea in the Original post, and ideas that are related to it.