Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
40mmrain

Why are there still many layers on maps that pit Conventionals and Irregulars against each other symmetrically?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

When Squad's first public alpha became playable the US army and Insurgent faction were essentially equal in capability. Both sides had non-magnified rifles, and vehicles were not part of the game. Because of this it was appropriate for symmetrical gamemode/map layouts to exist. Slowly, this has changed; each patch has widened the gap between the conventionals and the irregulars. First riflemen gained magnified optics, then strong armoured vehicles with remote turrets were introduced, and now both the AR and MG kits for the both the russians and US army have magnification, and of course the UK army is not short of superior weapons, having a very high distribution of optics, foregrips, and bipods.

 

Despite this, many of the older layers remain almost completely unchanged, and even new maps that come out involve symmetrical layers of conventional vs. irregulars. In games where each side has equal skill, these games are just not fun. The irregular force is destined to be outkilled, and if they win, it's only because they simply start with more tickets, or the conventionals had a few bad players who misused vehicles grossly and sucked up a bunch of tickets.

 

I am not the only one to notice this. Every patch, and regularly between patches, many forum users point out this disparity in balance. However, unlike them, I know that simply giving out a bunch of optics to the irregulars or taking them away form the conventionals is just a bland solution, that homogenizes the game.

 

The way to have balanced matches between a force that is much better equipped than another force is to give the worse equipped force a terrain advantage. By simply forcing the better equipped to attack positions that are inherently easy to defend and strategically useful, you achieve balance. The invasion and insurgency game modes are basically designed for this. The developers can easily control the balance of the game with these game modes by putting the flags and caches in easy to defend locations while giving the defending team enough time to set up to defend them.

 

Insurgency needs to be fixed and made actually good, like its Project Reality counterpart. Invasion's rules need to be finalized. Because of all of the advantages that regulars have, it's time for the days of the symmetrical layers on maps like Kokan, Kamdesh, Gorodok, Logar, Mestia, etc. to go, and be replaced with layers that properly balance the difference of equipment in the forces with terrain advantages.

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is annoying when you get domed by a magnified optic as INS, but I think their are other ways than making new maps/changing terrain to balance the disparity. I think that adding more specialized (non fire support) classes to INS like the scout class for example would help solve the problem. It would be cool if their were a class that had either a mosin nagant or an sks with a pu scope that gave INS an accurate ranged fire capability. You could argue that their is a marksmen class, but the marksmen class isn't nearly as important as the other fire support roles when the enemy team as a huge advantage when it comes to armoured vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurgency and Invasion do work for irregulars because they're fundamentally asymmetrical but I don't want to see irregulars only ever played as defenders.

 

Other ways of representing the terrain advantage are with both spawn locations and spawn mechanics. We see some of this already with Insurgent and Militia HABs costing less than their conventional counterparts and a couple of layers giving Insurgents multiple spawn protected bases.

 

Adding additional spread out spawn locations to layers with conventionals vs irregulars is the simplest way to encourage a different playstyle. In terms of tweaking mechanics I think if irregulars were able to place several somehow weaker HABs at a FOB rather than one it could also emphasize their guerrilla gameplay.

 

Couple that with more unique kits like Mike suggests and I think the broader player base would be much more willing to play Militia or Insurgents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Crist how long will you go about optics.Optics dose not determine who will win the whole team dose.

The whole point of the game is to have difirent type of weapons armies conventional and unconventional there for diffirent play styles are needed to win.And another point is to have fun try out different weapons and vehicles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally like the challenge of facing off conventional forces with better equipment as a INS/MIL factions. It adds a nice separation away from 1:1 balance that those other generic shooters give, and gives a nice asymmetrical flavor despite AAS in a way forcing a direct conventional battle over cap zones.

One of the biggest issues is, people play every faction the same. They play INS/MIL like they are US, UK and RU. They see a U.S Squad 300m out, they shoot at them instead of maneuvering around them or waiting for them to get close. Itchy trigger fingers and lack of fire discipline is just the public play way. 

As INS/MIL, you have to act more mobile, use SPG techies to flank and try get shots into the rear of armored vehicles for 1 hit kills, use normal techies to gain early map control from match start since they are a lot faster than all conventional faction vehicles. Use scouts to mine and ied commonly used vehicle vantage points and roads. Use HAT + LAT kits as sneaky hunters to track and kill vehicles.

If people play conventionally with an unconventional faction, with a completely different set of tools, then of course they're going to complain about being out shot at a distance - because they all blob on a cap instead of spread out, take fights that they're obviously outranged in, don't use their factions tools properly to inflict damage and gain ticket advantage that way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They mentioned it wasn't intended for so many non-conventional vs conventional forces on AAS layers in the recent Squad Chat. Just happened to be that way due to the facts that alternative game modes were taking longer. 

 

I like the challenge and feel like its actually gotten a bit better in the most recent patch because folks are figuring out how to properly mine/IED and especially using SPG techies against high value assets. On top of that, on certain maps its been really fun (or incredibly frustrating) watching one squad just ruin your logistics/ability to move heavy assets with any safety. We got wrecked by insurgents as British on a recent invasion layer because we simply could not get FOBs up and had all of our armor ambushed in a short matter of time. This is the first patch where I felt like the game was maturing at a noticeable level.

 

That being said, they are clearly aware of the issues. Its just going to take time to iron it all out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Dubs said:

I personally like the challenge of facing off conventional forces with better equipment as a INS/MIL factions. It adds a nice separation away from 1:1 balance that those other generic shooters give, and gives a nice asymmetrical flavor despite AAS in a way forcing a direct conventional battle over cap zones.

One of the biggest issues is, people play every faction the same. They play INS/MIL like they are US, UK and RU. They see a U.S Squad 300m out, they shoot at them instead of maneuvering around them or waiting for them to get close. Itchy trigger fingers and lack of fire discipline is just the public play way. 

As INS/MIL, you have to act more mobile, use SPG techies to flank and try get shots into the rear of armored vehicles for 1 hit kills, use normal techies to gain early map control from match start since they are a lot faster than all conventional faction vehicles. Use scouts to mine and ied commonly used vehicle vantage points and roads. Use HAT + LAT kits as sneaky hunters to track and kill vehicles.

If people play conventionally with an unconventional faction, with a completely different set of tools, then of course they're going to complain about being out shot at a distance - because they all blob on a cap instead of spread out, take fights that they're obviously outranged in, don't use their factions tools properly to inflict damage and gain ticket advantage that way. 

 

The whole point of my essay was that there is no other way to play the game than to go head to head because that is how the maps and game mode are designed. Your suggestions for how the unconventionals should play does not reflect the reality of the game. 

 

I dont care about "sneaky rpg teams" as us infantry on kamdesh or whatever. They have no effect on me spanking the enemy in infantry engagements on the points or between them. 

 

As far as setting up ambushes outaide of main to get an upperhand. Ill ask, what stops the us from doing this? No.. what stop then from doing it better? Techis die to a very short burst of .50 cal. Nevermind how powerful amd accurate the TOW is as an ambush tool. Nothing stops them. The us beat the ins at their own game too. 

 

They should not be on symmetrical map layouts.

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 40mmrain said:

The whole point of my essay was that there is no other way to play the game than to go head to head because that is how the maps and game mode are designed. Your suggestions for how the unconventionals should play does not reflect the reality of the game. 

 

I dont care about "sneaky rpg teams" as us infantry on kamdesh or whatever. They have no effect on me spanking the enemy in infantry engagements on the points or between them. 

 

As far as setting up ambushes outaide of main to get an upperhand. Ill ask, what stops the us from doing this? No.. what stop then from doing it better? Techis die to a very short burst of .50 cal. Nevermind how powerful amd accurate the TOW is as an ambush tool. Nothing stops them. The us beat the ins at their own game too. 

 

They should not be on symmetrical map layouts.

You don't have to go head to head to decide the match, it doesn't always have to be blob vs blob over cap points to decide a match. Meat grinders only work for conventional forces if they maintain out shooting the enemy with the ability to maintain their spawns. Meat grinders are necessary to maintain a concentration of the enemy team in one location, but lil sneaky things can gain you ticket advantage, don't need to camp their main.

AAS is predictable as it's linear, there's common FOB spots people use repeatedly, especially in public games. That is powerful knowledge early game to get an SPG or a regular techie with LAT's in it, to go to those general areas and intercept enemy Logi early game before the enemy can place a FOB and drop supplies. Even mid - late game, have patrolling SPG techies or LAT's go behind the lines and harass supplies.

Vehicle vantage points are predictable as people always use the same high points or choke points to park their vehicles and rain hell down on. If no vehicle is there, place mines or wait there, because eventually they will go there.

Use techies in a suicidal manner, and drive behind enemy lines - wiping out their rally points.

Use IED techies to bum rush enemy FOBs and vehicles.

Get a scout to place IEDs in commonly occupied building used for defense on Cap and if you lose cap, wait for enemy to pile up and set them off, then counter attack.

Techies die fast, so do IFV's/APC's. 1 LAT Shot to the arse end and they go up in flames and smoke. Enemy logistics trucks explode just as easy as techies. Techies are faster and more maneuverable than all vehicles in game. Set yourself up early game and harass mid - late game and you can withstand the meat grind and win. Take away their spawns, logistics and heavy vehicles - You gain the ticket advantage.

Again, One of the main issues is the playerbase playing every faction the same. Not utilizing their faction tools. INS/MIL have their place in AAS, it's harder to play when being on their side, but adds a unique challenge despite AAS being a bit more in favor to conventional forces. Another issue is the lack of SL's with game knowledge/experience playing, a lot of SL's playing are inexperienced and only know one thing CHAAAARGE!






 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last time. Those things are either not exclusive to ins and are done better by conventionals, are completely non viable, or are not nearly enough to make up for huge disadvatanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't read through all of this only the first post..:/

but this seems like the kinda thread were i need to lay in my maybe worthless opinion again on the INS/militia faction to only be on insurgency and invasion game modes like in PR.

the INS/militia factions are made for asymmetrical warfare and thus should only be on asymmetrical warfare map modes...ie 

insurgency and invasion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bahrein said:

Jesus Crist how long will you go about optics.Optics dose not determine who will win the whole team dose.

The whole point of the game is to have difirent type of weapons armies conventional and unconventional there for diffirent play styles are needed to win.And another point is to have fun try out different weapons and vehicles.

 

Lol the only chance for INS to win on Kemdash against US is for the US team to suck massively. Yesterday my team was winning every other round massively against a noob enemy team, like they can't even offer any resistence, the length of those games depended on how fast you can physically walk to the next capture point. Yet on Kemdash they almost won the game by playing US and just camping in bushes shooting anything that moves 300ms away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dubs said:

You don't have to go head to head to decide the match, it doesn't always have to be blob vs blob over cap points to decide a match. Meat grinders only work for conventional forces if they maintain out shooting the enemy with the ability to maintain their spawns. Meat grinders are necessary to maintain a concentration of the enemy team in one location, but lil sneaky things can gain you ticket advantage, don't need to camp their main.

AAS is predictable as it's linear, there's common FOB spots people use repeatedly, especially in public games. That is powerful knowledge early game to get an SPG or a regular techie with LAT's in it, to go to those general areas and intercept enemy Logi early game before the enemy can place a FOB and drop supplies. Even mid - late game, have patrolling SPG techies or LAT's go behind the lines and harass supplies.

Vehicle vantage points are predictable as people always use the same high points or choke points to park their vehicles and rain hell down on. If no vehicle is there, place mines or wait there, because eventually they will go there.

Use techies in a suicidal manner, and drive behind enemy lines - wiping out their rally points.

Use IED techies to bum rush enemy FOBs and vehicles.

Get a scout to place IEDs in commonly occupied building used for defense on Cap and if you lose cap, wait for enemy to pile up and set them off, then counter attack.

Techies die fast, so do IFV's/APC's. 1 LAT Shot to the arse end and they go up in flames and smoke. Enemy logistics trucks explode just as easy as techies. Techies are faster and more maneuverable than all vehicles in game. Set yourself up early game and harass mid - late game and you can withstand the meat grind and win. Take away their spawns, logistics and heavy vehicles - You gain the ticket advantage.

Again, One of the main issues is the playerbase playing every faction the same. Not utilizing their faction tools. INS/MIL have their place in AAS, it's harder to play when being on their side, but adds a unique challenge despite AAS being a bit more in favor to conventional forces. Another issue is the lack of SL's with game knowledge/experience playing, a lot of SL's playing are inexperienced and only know one thing CHAAAARGE!






 

None of what you said could be realized if all the scoped machinegunners were half competent as I am. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love when people say they like the challenge of playing INS/Mil. If it's a challenge, then you admit it's unbalanced.

 

Then people give examples of cool and smart irregular tactics, the way to victory. Except if the regulars also use their assets smartly, you are screwed.

 

No escaping it: AAS pitting asymmetrical forces is bad design. Regular armies will be better in combat, period. Increasing ticket count for irregulars makes nothing to decrease player frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of the layers in the a11 patch started to experiment with changing up layer combinations, and we'll likely start seeing more. The feedback has been very positive and, as noted in the SquadChat, our game designers recognize that some teams, due to their asymmetric nature, aren't perfect for some game modes or maps. I think there's still some sense of, "That's wrong!" based on the logic of, say, British versus USA on Kamdesh, but pitting their respective strengths together turns out to be pretty dang fun. Changes to AAS and new game modes in the pipe are being done with that in mind... so, keep the feedback coming! We're listening. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gatzby said:

A couple of the layers in the a11 patch started to experiment with changing up layer combinations, and we'll likely start seeing more. The feedback has been very positive and, as noted in the SquadChat, our game designers recognize that some teams, due to their asymmetric nature, aren't perfect for some game modes or maps. I think there's still some sense of, "That's wrong!" based on the logic of, say, British versus USA on Kamdesh, but pitting their respective strengths together turns out to be pretty dang fun. Changes to AAS and new game modes in the pipe are being done with that in mind... so, keep the feedback coming! We're listening. =)

Great! Please bring back Intel system to reveal cache locations on insurgency mode so that people want to play it again!(was popular in PR)

I feel the main reason people don't play it on squad is this and this alone..Intel system made insurgency fun! The way it is now ..correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like time based untill cache appears on map..Wich means people just sit around and wait for cache to appear and then just rush it before insurgents have a chance to fob it.

 

In PR you (as bluefor) had to patrol to find enemy strong points and if you killed civilian class people(no POD, indisciminent fire) than the cache location would not appear as killing civilians subtracted the Intel needed to reveal cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2018 at 2:09 PM, 40mmrain said:

For the last time. Those things are either not exclusive to ins and are done better by conventionals, are completely non viable, or are not nearly enough to make up for huge disadvatanges.

They're viable tactics and work. Lose 30 tickets on techies, take 100+ tickets in enemy APC/IFV.

 

Lose 5 ticket techie, destroy enemies chance of early game HAB.

 

INS are less risk/cheaper & faster - make use of it.

 

Ticket bleed changes made meat grinders over cap points not really the deciding factor. Can cap most points but lose by 100+ tickets because 1 or 2 scouty bois/Spg's/Lat/Hat made plays while meat shields kept enemy occupied.

 

Its been proven not only in public matches, but organized clan games - these things work. Its harder to achieve victory, that's for sure, but its doable & happens regularly. I see it daily.

 

I prefer variety, not limitation. Remove INS/MIL from AAS - you have 3 factions in AAS in 1:1 arcade style balance instead of adding a little flavor & more variety. PR got away with it, because the number of faction count spread across game modes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say after awhile with AAS and being on a server where folks have figured out how to really turn the screws on a cocky conventional force that it is a ton of fun. Hit their logistics, have Squads wait in hiding when they are about to take a flag and hit them as they move off, armor hunting teams. Not saying that is the norm, but boy does it feel good when you knock a conventional team completely off balance. Not sure I agree with techies being bumped in price vs. IFVs going down in price. Will have to see how that plays out. 

 

We do need a second conventional OPFOR, not sure what the options are for the short term outside of something like MEC, but playing Russia all the time gets a bit old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I noticed that A LOT of the layers in 11.1 were updated, and many of the conventional vs. irregular were tweaked/or removed, and the miltia leader got a scope :D

 

thanks devs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... yeah, there is valid point there. Put conventional vs conventional in AAS. But then again, we still don't have too many conventional OPFOR... actually, only one: Russia. Would be cool if could see another one like China. Huh, i guess we are going to see milita and ins till then as placeholder (to China, MEC or something else)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Disco said:

 i guess we are going to see milita and ins till then as placeholder (to China, MEC or something else)?

i hope this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing Invasion almost exclusively lately, AAS has begun to bore me to death....... Anyway, it's a great showcase of how well asymmetric forces can be fun and succeed. You know the conventional forces have to come to you, you have time to set up defenses and if you can kill their vehicles, they really have a tough time of it. Tailor made for roaming AT squads, harassing marksmen, mines and fire team ambushes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Disco said:

 Huh, i guess we are going to see milita and ins till then as placeholder (to China, MEC or something else)?

7 hours ago, ♠DEG♠ said:

i hope this is the case.

Devs have stated after GB they want at least 3 more factions in Squad, but are unknown what factions they want - and the probability of having a new faction ready before 1.0 release is low. So INS/MIL will most likely be PH's for certain game modes, for a little while to come - and we will most likely have a new faction or two sometime in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those asymetrics should be written somewhere when you start the match. So both teams can keep them in mind while playing.

 

I for one have played a lot of squad, but ive never really realited those differences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dubs said:

Devs have stated after GB they want at least 3 more factions in Squad, but are unknown what factions they want - and the probability of having a new faction ready before 1.0 release is low. So INS/MIL will most likely be PH's for certain game modes, for a little while to come - and we will most likely have a new faction or two sometime in the future.

 

nice that's the first i heard of that. good thing's take time. all in all squad is the diamond in the rough of games...not very many games that are made by people with a passion and clear vision of what they want. seems the suit's and ties are infiltrating the gaming industry to try and make some money and its really making for some shit games that cost more then normal. this game is made by people who play or have played..and you can tell it really translates from the development process to the gameplay! 

so dont think im bitching just tossing my opinions here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LugNut said:

I've been playing Invasion almost exclusively lately, AAS has begun to bore me to death....... Anyway, it's a great showcase of how well asymmetric forces can be fun and succeed. You know the conventional forces have to come to you, you have time to set up defenses and if you can kill their vehicles, they really have a tough time of it. Tailor made for roaming AT squads, harassing marksmen, mines and fire team ambushes. 

I had the invasion layer from hell on Kohat as US. Type of massacre that would have a country rethinking its presence. Wrecks all along the road, lost all armor in the first 15 minutes, logistics never established, Squad comms a mess. If I ever play that layer as a US SL again I am just going to do a logistics and combat engineer squad to keep the roads clear of IEDs and try to keep an eye out for SPGs before they can strike.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×