Insurgent support type: Spawn a bunch of AIs.

Kinda like the elite bots scorestreak in CoD, this would fill a similar role to the Security chopper supports. After all the choppers are controlled by AI as well. These bots could act both as fighters, and as meat-shields/distraction while real player flank. This could really work great in the game, fit nicely within the teams 'lore' distinctions and balance the supports. Right now insurgents just get "some type of boom boom" and like @thehappybub pointed out in another thread, they could use some variety and balancing.

On top of that it would marry coop and pvp in some small way. Sad to see that great AI go to waste for half the playerbase.

last edited by Pakislav

I like your idea of bot support but I don't like the notion of them being bullet sponges like the blops ones...

Have you played COOP? The bots take as much to kill as players, which is to say mostly one bullet.

I just interpreted your blops strike team example literally. The strike team guys take like a ridiculous amount of bullets to kill, I just don't want that to happen. As long as the bots you're suggesting are still human lol.

Yup. CoD on core is... I'll avoid expletives: really bad. On hardcore those bots are still a little silly. NWI has done a great job with theirs.

"Marrying" co-op and pvp isn't necessarily a positive. If I wanted to play against bots, I'd play co-op. Fire support already introduces enough bullshit ways to die; I don't want to die because some bot broke and 180 headshotted me or I wasted time shooting bots when there's a player I can't engage because of them.

You'd probably like a removal of choppers, wouldn't you?

last edited by Pakislav

I’m going to have to agree with @cyoce, although I do like the firesupport in this. pvp should not have bot players. Even getting killed by an AI helicopter or suicide drone is still different from getting killed by a bot that looks just like another player. It would be extremely infuriating to be killed by one, and there would be no satisfaction in killing one. As cycoe said, people who choose to play pvp as opposed to coop should not find themselves fighting and getting killed by bot players.

I think if bots are going to be used as a support option, they should only ever be the type that can't shoot back to prevent people ever complaining about bot aimbot AI in multiplayer (pretty much only Suicide bombers). It's already been suggested, but yea a suicide bomber rush of AIs would fit right in with the games theme.

last edited by AMURKA

@pakislav I'd love for all fire support (except smoke mortars) to be removed, but I don't think that's a realistic expectation.

last edited by cyoce

@thehappybub I agree, the removal of skill-less random free kills is gross.

@cyoce It's not skill-less, fire support adds another level of complexity onto a game beyond the typical infantry-based combat.

As commander, the placement of fire support can make or break a match. Though I do think that the current commander/observer implementation for calling in support is stupid, the concept of having a player control the battlefield and support the team is an extremely good game mechanic, especially for people playing in coordinated teams once voip and voice chat get fully implemented.

Even in a match with random people, it encourages team communication as teammates suggest or critique fire support calls by the commander. Further, it increases the coordination of attacks and makes sure that every member of the team is focused on the objective and attacking it as a unit. You can't just wander off and try to do everything yourself since you have to consider how the fire support is being placed. If you're not a team player you get hit by the friendly fire.

Finally, the types of fire support realistically reflect the extra considerations infantry units need to take in modern combat. You no longer have to solely worry about enemy infantry and where you're getting shot from, now you have to think about your own survival in a much more open way. You need to consider your cover from the air, you need to consider how to respond to gas attacks. It's an extra fear factor which makes the thrill of SS so much more intense and fulfilling. Removing fire support would relegate the game from being an experience to being just a game.

In summary fire support (1) requires a skillful commander and finally introduces a true high-responsibility role (2) increases team communication (3) increases attack coordination and therefore teamwork (4) is realistic for the modern day (5) increases the modern combat experience offered by Ins SS, setting it apart from other games.

All the extra explosions, effects, callouts, and general hubbub that come with fire support being dished out or received increase the sense of chaos and make the game live up to a simulation of modern combat moreso than just a tactical shooter. I want SS to be as close to a simulation as it can, so yes, removing fire support except for smoke would ruin the game for me, and is therefore a highly undesirable proposition for me. Ew.

@thehappybub While I agree with most of what you’re saying, you really need to stop writing half your sentences in bold. It does not help you convey your points at all, nor do other people think your smarter because of it. Honestly I don’t know what’s gotten into you since you didn’t always write half your sentences in bold. Like it’s not even worth the effort of highlighting some words and hitting the bold button. Another thing I would like to add is writing a conclusion at the end. Of course there is value in writing a conclusion, but this is the comment section for Insurgency Sandstorm, not your college class. This too just puts people under the impression that you’re trying to act smarter than you really are. You probably put more effort into the structuring of you comments than your actual opinions, which again, is good for school, but not some Internet forums.

Overall, You (1) really need to stop putting half your comments in bold and (2) put way too much effort into the structuring of you responses.

@tooth-decay When I read other people's longer responses I usually just skim it and appreciate those who bold or italicize the more important points of their paragraphs. I figured I might as well do what I appreciate in my comments to make it easier for others to just skim my longer responses.

What does the "effort" of my responses matter? Sorry I happen to be better at written English than most people. Just because I'm on an internet forum doesn't mean I should sacrifice grammar and my writing style.

How about you respond to the OP's point, or to another comment instead of trying to blast the style of my comments?

@thehappybub said in Insurgent support type: Spawn a bunch of AIs.:
But if you’re going to respond to a post, it’s important that you read everything they said, and not just half of their sentences.

Sorry I happen to be better at written English than most people.

No. Now you’re making it sound even more like you’re trying to act smarter than you are.

Just because I'm on an internet forum doesn't mean I should sacrifice grammar and my writing style.

I’m not saying you should feel obligated to, my point is that on an Internet forum nobody cares about your format, so you really shouldn’t even bother wasting your time with it.

How about you respond to the OP's point, or to another comment instead of trying to blast the style of my comments?

I did.

last edited by Tooth Decay

@tooth-decay said in Insurgent support type: Spawn a bunch of AIs.:

...on an Internet forum nobody cares about your format...

I do.

@tooth-decay why do you care so much about the format of my posts? Why did you decide to write a paragraph about it lmao?

Your previous comment had absolutely nothing to do with the OP's comment besides saying that you agree with most of what I'm saying.