NEW GAME MODE: INS CnC

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

This is a very similar game mode to normal CnC, but balanced for INS factions to take part in and put the BLUFOR in more of a defensive role.

BLUFOR must build and maintain 2 FOBs at all times or rapidly bleed tickets. At the beginning of the round, they have 10 minutes to build their FOBs and cannot build more than 2. After that, if they have only one, the ticket bleed starts, falling even more rapidly if there are no FOBs at all built. Starting at 10 minutes, INS side also need to keep one hideout up at all times, but can build two that are operating at a time. FOBs built closer to the center of the map will make the other team's ticket bleed faster if 1 of their FOBs or both of their Hideouts go down. FOBs and Hideouts must be built one map grid away from the edge of the maps, and two map grids away from each other. Both teams can have mortars that must be within 200m of a FOB or Hideout, and within 50m of each other.

If possible to implement and change from normal game mods, INS hideouts will require a single light supply crate to build.
Also change Civilians deaths in this game mode to punish BLUFOR by 2 tickets per civi killed, so long as they are within the civilian restrictions. Civilian arrests by BLUFOR would cost INS 4 tickets.

Everyone loves the Bamyan AAS Alt sometimes, and with this game mode, we could make this BLUFOR outpost defense scenario possible on any INS map whenever we want to. The civilian meta creates an incentive for intel gathering from civis.

I believe this could be a very balanced, teamwork oriented, and action-packed game mode. With proper asset balance, which for most maps I am not even sure I would change from their normal INS loadouts, it can be fine-tuned even further. Area attack warm up periods and types (bring back JDAM) could also be altered to fit this mode better.

[WingWalker]

I would like something like this, but the server/s will not play it.

I feel a better change would be for the DEVs to implement a way to influence what the server/s run.

Maybe something drastic like put out a release with only 1 game mode option like CNC, or your idea, to introduce it better.

No one knows what CNC is because the general population is too impatient to learn it, especially just getting to play it once or twice since the server/s will not commit to running it on a regular basis.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

In the way that a new map is played frequently after a release, I think the same thing would happen with a new game mode.

If there were an update with detailed instructions of the new game mode on the forum change log and in the manual, people's desire to try out something new would give the game mode a lot of opportunities to be played and tested for balance. People would quickly get used to it but unlike with a new map, they would not get tired of playing it a lot just after release because of the 20 or so maps with INS layers currently, you are looking at a lot of variety for how teams would play each round. Areas of maps that normally do not have any major battles would be played. This could even open up the door for other maps to add INS CnC layers.

[Coalz101]

From what I read, what you want is basically CnC Redux but with insurgent factions. Sadly I missed the event so I don't know how good CnC Redux was but from what I read it sounds good.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Originally Posted by Coalz101

From what I read, what you want is basically CnC Redux but with insurgent factions. Sadly I missed the event so I don't know how good CnC Redux was but from what I read it sounds good.

I have never heard of this. But most event matches I have seen on youtube (I guess only the Bluedrake events) looked pretty fun. So anything closer to having an event type round in a pub match could be cool. One thing CnC does need is the info that INS matches already display but for CnC rules. Also a timer to show how much time a team has to build a FOB before their tickets bleed would be useful. This thread: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=151612 discussed to possibility for more information to be shown to players, such as timers and things.

[WingWalker]

Whatever game mode is created it would have to be immediately apparent to a new user how to play, with no instruction or manual.

Gun Game kind of worked, but even that is barely ran.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Insurgency is in no way immediately apparent to a new user how to play. Sure, we know to attack the red diamond as Blufor and defend blue diamond as Opfor, but beyond that there is no way. That is why we have the manual. Simple instructions at the top the screen will be enough. "BLUFOR has 10 minutes to build 2 FOBS" "INS has 10 minutes to build 1 FOB." Things like that. Gun game is barely ran because it is for seeding servers. I suppose the absence of any markers on the map to start the round would be the main handicap to this game mode becoming common, but if it is released, it will get enough play time from regular players/regular SLs in the first week that any rounds played after that first week will have enough players familiar with it that it should run smoothly. Then anyone not familiar with it will then learn from those that are as with any other new feature release. This is how PR works.

[Grump/Gump.45]

Originally Posted by BigBigMonkeyMan

BLUFOR must build and maintain 2 FOBs at all times or rapidly bleed tickets. At the beginning of the round, they have 10 minutes to build their FOBs and cannot build more than 2.

TL : DR Due to this player issue (described below) of teamwork on single regular FOB CNC, putting FOBs in bad obvious landmark and/or locations closer to enemy main. I think for 2 FOBs for 4 kilometer maps on this 2 FOB CNC the max distance allowed between FOBs should be 1 kilometer maximum.

For a 1 Kilometer map like Fallujah no more than 400 meters apart. That is the maximum possible diameter/length of FOB with foxholes, 200 meters from middle any direction. Otherwise the FOBs get attacked separately and can't protect each other.

Force teamwork, if somebody tries to build too far from the first FOB they should get a prompt. Better to force teamwork among the team than to force the team to work on one persons bad idea. As squad leaders we throw our ideas out there together, find the best one or mix the best aspects of all plans together. Just because you create a squad doesn't make you a leader, that is only the first step.

If you can't back up or put down an idea with logic of pros/cons, if its just your plan standing alone and not your teams decision together as majority seeing the benefits of a plan. Then that plan shouldn't be done unless the majority of team agrees to a bad idea understanding and willing for the self-handicapped risks of hard hits to come.

But this takes "Briefing time" at start of the match which people fill with spam saying useless things that aren't funny to anyone but themselves. Part of a personality disorder in relation to understand others perceptions and empathy. They ruin the game, these same people when I suggest briefing be used for tactics, basic strategy and planning the way it was intended. I get only cancerous responses from the worst of the community. Its actually the same people who get banned for racism and stuff because they have impulse control with their tongue even if it harms them.

Full Post.. WARNING.. tactics, psychology and personal methods below

I love CNC, I want this new game mode with INS. But there is a problem with regular CNC. I can see it now knowing what people think teamwork is. They think its ONLY within their squad of 8 and not among all 9 squads of 8. Some people like Chuck Norris don't allow team decisions about the FOB to be made in the squad leader chat, they rush to do their FOB spot idea first before the teams majority gets to their setup spot. Its an annoying race between the smart and dumb players. It looks stupid when dumb people drive fast to go do stupid things against their team, adds to their reputation.

That is how bad these ideas are in relation to pros/cons of it. No pros in their idea, the whole plan is a con and them trying to justify it actually lists off cons because they don't see the bad in their own plan. It actually sounds like a plan to troll, grief and sabotage the team with a bad idea because they didn't want to play CNC. But if they admit that they could get banned. Its like they get a rise out of people anger at the bad idea just trolling or they really think that way having ideas that dumb.

They want to place FOBs always in obvious easy to see landmark locations, like Saaremaa where 90% of the map is forest to camouflage and hide a FOB in. Enemy could walk by and not see it, if everyone followed "dont shoot unless you see them see you, watch till either you or them move out of sight" like special forces sneaking it would be very cool. Buying the FOB more time to not get found. But bad leaders want to place it in 1 of the 20 easy to see named/labeled locations (light house, bunker, control tower, pump station, a village). But since they don't believe this game should be played for those types of skills, they don't even hide themselves. This is all about FOB placement.

Due to this player issue of teamwork on single FOB CNC. I think for 2 FOBs for 4 kilometer maps on this 2 FOB CNC the max distance allowed between FOBs should be 1 kilometer MAX. For a 1 Kilometer map like Fallujah no more than 400 meters apart. That is the maximum possible diameter/length of FOB with foxholes, 200 meters from middle any direction. Force teamwork, if somebody tries to build too far from the first FOB they should get a prompt.

These types will just have their bad idea they want to try for the whole team without any input from others, no explanation from them to team of pros/cons or any type of plan. Its actually just them ineffectively asserting their idea repeating the words of what he wants to do without any team discussion, providing pros/cons or convincing argument.

These types of people will even have a buddy create a squad just to get false majority when its really one person manipulating a clan puppet, using that guy because he sees "blind loyal support" to exploit from his hard headed clan mate wanting the idea done. Their reason is "just because" with no actual reason for it unless they are actively looking to sabotage the team making sure others don't have a good time. That is how bad these ideas are, no pros, the whole plan is a con and them trying to justify it actually lists off cons because they don't see the bad in their own plan.

Its some kind of personality disorder in the least if not just simply showing a single trait of one briefly, it depends on the person, how often they do it and their individual self-awareness to change steering themselves away from this anti-social behavior. On a scale of BPD to Socio/Psychopathy with multiple diagnosis Not Otherwise Specified(NOS) highly likely, somewhere between there. Lets make it clear, showing anger or frustration is not apart of that, but lack of understanding others through empathy or interpersonal skills even in these heated states of mind. Its like trying to think clearly while wounded or intoxicated.

I can accept somebodies idea, not call it bad and just apply it to different location if its the location I don't like that makes it bad. Terrain and what I can see is my only warning can be a factor, I communicate these situational things.

The set tactics from my 1 per cover poem are there though and cannot be changed unless you want bad things to happen to you or others. Its literally the training strong military gets put into different words of same logic. Anti-air uses armor as bait for CAS and protects armor. While at the same time from that position it also sets safe zones for friendly CAS to run to if being chased. No way around things like that. Its either you do it this way or you have no effective support.

Under bad teamwork, we would have 2 FOBs on different sides of map getting attacked separately, one more heavily than the other. I agree have 2 FOBs but why are we always dividing the insurgent forces whether they defend 2 caches or have to attack 2 flags?

Its better to force teamwork than one person force the team to a single bad idea one person came up with. If you can't back up or put down an idea with logic of pros/cons, if its just you and not your team together seeing the benefits it shouldn't be done unless the majority of team agrees to a bad idea. Which can be fun if already losing, sometimes dire hell like situations are fun.

Some people think that asserting their idea louder repeatedly more than others somehow asserts their idea as smarter or better sounding. Very annoying to argue with because they just repeat words immaturely and have no logical explanation to their plan. They throw it out there and expect everyone to follow blindly.

If somebody likes your idea enough they will completely forget theirs and add on to yours. Sometimes even the bad ideas explanation just sounds self destructive filled with CONS by nature and shuts itself down because there is no "pros" to the plan. Delusional made up pros of a single possible situation requiring very dumb enemies or that exact thing to happen.

A plan is not a script either, you have no control over possibilities unless you know them in relation to terrain. Your position versus how easy it is for enemy to use terrain to get to you. Korengal valley CNC would be fun for having FOBs on the highest mountains above Restrepo. I can script possibilities, including enemy dialogue of fear, frustration and the specific situation.

When I give my plans, I give the reality of situation all the time in relation to terrain, positioning, pros/cons, what will happen and how it will happen. Either we try that first or that is the backup plan if the FOB gets destroyed, either way we can try it but I don't force the plan on people dropping FOBs they don't want.

Ideally we want our FOB on our side of map closer to main for supplies, armor repairs and vehicle support. Less time for us, more time for enemy to search, travel and get resources up there together at same time to destroy it. Not closer to enemy side of map where they have less travel and search time.

You have the team with their plan 8/9 squads agree to, then we have that one SL who is rushing to do his own thing with the teams FOB before they place it. Sometimes its people coming from DIVSUL or Russian Reality pros placing the FOB. They ignore the team on SL chat when they come to our servers when theirs aren't populated. Its a false dominance that dumb people shouldn't feel they have, its basically delusions of their self thinking they are smart or something.

Its like the armor, only its FOBs "Ill take my APC to this side of the map, you take yours here." When they could both double firepower, security and eyes. Teamwork, watching each others backs. While dividing enemy fire and attention. If one gets shot at, they distract while the other draws attention till they can kill it.

To support each other you need to see each other, almost in all cases. This could make it feel like one big FOB. One big battle, which is why people should be playing Project Reality. Its why most of time we have 1 or 2 objectives, to concentrate everyone in view of the objective. I have made FOBs so big by spreading foxholes 200 meters from the epicenter of FOB giving me 400 meter long or diameter FOBs.

[Coalz101]

Originally Posted by BigBigMonkeyMan

I have never heard of this.

It's here

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Yeah that sounds awesome, but of course the whole buying of assets mechanic would probably be too complicated for a normal pub rounds/ not sure if we can always get enough responsible players on to do that properly. This is still a game mode I would want for normal public rounds.
I do like his reasoning for that game mode. Waiting for the area attack on normal CnC sucks. UAV does sort of ruin that game mode in a way. Part of the fun is scouting and such.
@Gump you suggest these rules man, but that just takes accountability away, which we need to build in the community for it to stay alive.