Insurgency needs a quick fix ASAP!

[nozzzle]

The idea of unknowns is silly, it promotes an incredibly boring style of gameplay for both sides (spending half a round searching the map whilst the other team sits bored on the known). It is also incredibly frustrating for insurgents as there is very little they can do to stop unknowns dieing, especially when they spawn in obvious places. Yes insurgents can defend the unknown, however this hardly ever happens and isn't that effective. They have a choice between hiding on the unknown for god knows how long not doing anything vs actually playing the game doing other things on the map.

For me the simplest solution already mentioned in this thread would be the best, just remove unknown caches. When enough intel points have been collected and there is currently only one known, simply just spawn a second known. This basically removes ghosting, idiots spawning on unknowns and I feel would make insurgency much more fun and balanced for both sides.

[Joker86]

Wouldn't two knowns be practically undefendable for the insurgents?

[B.Pronk(NL)]

Originally Posted by Joker86

Wouldn't two knowns be practically undefendable for the insurgents?

Yes, that is why I suggested instead of 32 vs 32 matches of 50 vs 50. Because you get less overwhelmed when you have more people near a cache even though the numbers could be 2:1 for the BLUFOR, you should be able to get a more solid line with 25 people at each cache.

So to line up my suggestions or the ones I mostly agreed with. Maybe they should also be implemented at the Taliban maps and other Insurgent like factions.

-Give the Insurgents a more varierity of weapons, look at the community modellers for possible models

-Make the server standards 50vs50 and adjust the assets of the map to it.

-Remove the unkown and instead make a cache area containing multiple caches in larger areas.

- Give the BLUFOR no tickets bonus if you keep the unknowns, when they destroy the unknowns and decrease the INS ticket loss from 10 to 5.

- When there are 2 known caches make a priority cache and a secondary cache, where the priority cache gives a higher tickets bonus.

- Decrease the amount of starting tickets on several maps.

- On maps like Karbala and Al Basrah give the compounds outside of the city basements or even small tunnels to make it more difficult to destroy caches.

- Decrease C4 blast damage against caches, although it should still be realistic.

- Allow Insurgent to request the basic kits, and change their request menu with other names.

- Give the insurgents the possibility to make some kind of roadblocks like suggested many times before

[SnipeHunt]

Originally Posted by Arnoldio

Dbzao ran some tests with one cache only... Was proper stuff.

Quick fix is simple - Make caches spawn when they are known and not when unknown, but the spawnpoint is there as now.

I like this idea. seems like a good solution!

[badmojo420]

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.

[B.Pronk(NL)]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

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.

What about screwing the BLUFOR for once? I think to many BLUFOR whores are having their heads up the Dev's ass.

[badmojo420]

Funny, because I've always favored opfor in insurgency.

My comment was.. screw the insurgents who can't defend unknowns. Meaning we shouldn't be changing the game to accommodate players who can't defend one unknown.

When I started playing PR around 0.7 we had what? maybe 10 caches spawned at the start of the round, a few were known, the action was usually map wide, pushing back the enemy at all times, front lines, etc. As insurgent there was a feeling that you owned the city, and as blufor you felt like the city was crawling with hajis.

Then due to the networkable object numbers being too high(which caused crashing), they lowered the spawned caches and added insurgent fobs. It seemed like an innocent bug fix along with new stuff for the insurgents. Shovels for everyone!

But, we're still suffering the consequences to this day. INS lost the majority of their pre-built spawns so players were usually left spawning at the few unknown caches or main. You can't blame the blufor for seeing these buildings of RPG wielding insurgents and going in to remove the cache. It's a smart move for them to attack the less defended objective.

The community tried to remedy this problem itself, "DON'T SPAWN ON UNKNOWN CACHE YOU IDIOTS!!" was spammed constantly. And for a while it worked. People would avoid the unknowns or maintain a low profile when there. The action was centered around the known cache for the most part, hideouts were built to give nobody an excuse for not defending the known.

And then some blufor players decided to use the undefended unknowns to their advantage. The started searching places they've seen caches in past games, knowing INS put too much faith in the purple marker. People complained constantly about this in-game and on the forums. Either the blufor were ghosting, or the unknowns shouldn't be spawnable/visible/destroyable, or the caches shouldn't spawn close together for multiple reasons. Or even the BF2 MOTD banner noobs were giving away all the unknowns. Did I forget any?

So more changes were made, they created a system to prevent caches spawning together, which led to people exploiting the system to locate unknowns. Also, they reduced the number of caches to win and shuffled around some tickets. Which ultimately favored the blufor, giving them more tickets per cache than previously. And, finally we've now gone down to a two cache system, and with db's tests looks like we might be going to one.

I have no doubts removing all but one cache will mean easier defense for the insurgents. And it will put an end to unknown defensive failures.... aka ghosting/hunting/exploting.

But, it's so far away from the feeling I got when playing the original insurgency game mode. That feeling of owning the city just doesn't happen when you have to fight for every inch of it first. And on the flip side, that feeling of a city alive with danger isn't really there when 90% of the danger is confined to a fraction of the map at a time.

TLDR? Everyone is looking to fix insurgency, when we should be looking back at what broke it and revert some of those specific changes.

[B.Pronk(NL)]

Maybe is some kind of AAS possible? Called uprising, you have for example 15 objectives, and one will be spawnable for the INS, the BLUFOR will get intel on the uprising in 5 minutes and then they should recap the flag. And since this can only be done by having a numerous advantage, they must clear the area. And after 10 flags for example the uprising is stopped. And at each district you have caches, they can be destroyed but they won't give a ticket bonus, they are only there to rearm and for weapon spawns. This could give the original INS feeling back? With spawnpoints at each flag you can make sure you own the whole city, but the objective is to hold the flag as long as possible. And another option is that after a certain amount of tickets loss for the BLUFOR, the insurgents get another district, so the BLUFOR has 2 districts to capture.

I will explain it later in a better way.

[Sgt. Mahi]

Originally Posted by B.Pronk(NL)

What about screwing the BLUFOR for once? I think to many BLUFOR whores are having their heads up the Dev's ass.

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.

[Web_cole]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

Funny, because I've always favored opfor in insurgency.

My comment was.. screw the insurgents who can't defend unknowns. Meaning we shouldn't be changing the game to accommodate players who can't defend one unknown.

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 bitch at you for doing so. That is not the same thing as being unable or unwilling.

Originally Posted by Joker86

Wouldn't two knowns be practically undefendable for the insurgents?

Its unrealistic to expect an (32 man) Insurgent team to defend two caches at all times like it is now, but if the 2nd cache only spawns on the map after a certain point that might not be so bad. Ins should expect to lose caches tbh, but that needn't mean they can't win. It just depends how the gameplay systems operate.