Project Reality Forums

I see where you are coming from and agree, I believe it is a big plus for insurgents to spawn on caches, as it gives them time to set up a defense.

However it is also right and proper that once a cache is surrounded that it should not be able to spawn more troops, its a realism thing as once the conventional forces have cornered a cache the last thing they're gonna do is let more insurgents get in the area to defend it.

It is already in the game partially in that the insurgents cannot spawn once the cache is revealed however it can be taken further and should by stopping spawn on undiscovered caches when enemy are in close proximity.

I would however like to suggest that the distance is very small from where this takes effect eg. no more than 40 or so meters. This I think would help balance the gameplay so that the insurgents can still spawn around a cache but once the blufor get really close then they must rely on hideouts.

However as Fuzz says, its not a massive priority

However as DB says, "Removing the spawn if coalition is close will be added."

Great suggestion Soldier. I've thought the very same thing when assaulting/defending an unexposed cache.

Ace42 wrote:Civilians are irrelevant, killing ALL insurgents gives intelligence points by default - so careful tactical killing of the spawners will make the cache appear in due course. Especially if the insurgent you kill is a squad leader, and arrests give more points too...

Insurgent killed: 1 IP
Civilian or insurgent arrested: 7 IP
Civilian killed (Under penalty conditions): -7 IP
Insurgent cell leader killed: 7 IP
Insurgent cell leader arrested: 14 IP

If they find a cache through patrolling, etc - they are "rewarded" - they KNOW WHERE IT IS. That's all the reward they need. Circumventing the i-points system so that they can avoid any sort of tactical intelligence gathering is their prerogative, and they have to suffer the consequences of not having inside intel, etc. It strikes me waves of spawns is a small price to pay given the free perks they get from stumbling over one.

Not sure what you are saying exactly.


Either way though, if they find a cache, they should not have to suffer the consequences. The insurgents should really be suffering the consequences because the first thing they should do when that cache first pops up for them is to lay down a hideout or have one in the area. If they do not have that has a backup spawn, they deserve to have their cache destroyed by the US/UK squads if they use better tactics to surround their cache.


And once they max out the intel system and have found the 3 caches but have to wait the 3 minutes, you can't expect them NOT to attack. What would happen is basically the US forces camping insurgent caches instead of actually attacking them.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:That's after a while though. I have had my entire squad surround caches before and still have insurgents spawn on them. What I am suggesting is to make cache spawns disapear like RPs after enemies are within 15-25M or so.



Yea, I remember. I was on all day today, so I probably played with half the community lol.

The problem then is, you have humvess speading past the cache areas, then BAM! you cant spawn there anymore.
I would like to be able to spawn at caches if there are no enemies nearby, and after they hav ebeen driven back.

Given the dev's comment, it's a moot point, but I think the rationale is highly debatable behind this; so...

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote: Either way though, if they find a cache, they should not have to suffer the consequences.

That's like saying "if you discover a firebase, you should not have to suffer the consequences".

Stumbling on a cache through patrolling rather than gathering of intelligence is intrinsically valuable. Aside from the fact that you know its exact location, and that there's a good chance it will be unprotected anyway giving you a free-cache-kill. Having waves of insurgents spawning on the cache strikes me as a small price to pay for essentially sidestepping the intel system and getting a chance at a free cache-kill.

The insurgents should really be suffering the consequences because the first thing they
should do when that cache first pops up for them is to lay down a hideout or have one in the area. If they do not have that has a backup spawn, they deserve to have their cache destroyed by the US/UK squads if they use better tactics to surround their cache.

So the first thing they do when they spawn on a hidden cache the opposition shouldn't know about is build up a massive signpost to say "hey, there's a cache near here!" ? Nevermind the fact that there are limitation on the number of hideouts available, etc. And if the "US/UK use better tactics to surround the cache" then a couple of insurgents spawning on it should be the smallest of problems to deal with.

I mean really, what are you suggesting? A cache gets blown, a new one spawns, and within two minutes of playing an entire squad or two has to suicide to spawn on the cache in order to be in position to defend it and build a hide-out? That hardly seems sensible...

And once they max out the intel system and have found the 3 caches but have to wait the 3 minutes, you can't expect them NOT to attack. What would happen is basically the US forces camping insurgent caches instead of actually attacking them.

Which is precisely what happens to revealed caches anyway, due to PR being specifically designed to penalise run-and-gunning; turning the whole thing into a game of patience with camping and scope-wars...

However, I don't really see what you think the problem is - it's not really possible to reveal 3 caches simultaneously, which means first one, then another, then the last cache will be revealed. That means the maximum wait is more like 1 minute 30 seconds, infinitely shorter than the amount of time you should be spending attacking the currently revealed caches rather than sneaking around trying to exploit the intelligence points meta-game system to get a free-hit on an unrevealed cache.

TBH it sounds like "We want to split the insurgents up even more so that our entire team can concentrate on one cache at a time; while the insurgents, who have inferior weapons, equipment, medical support, no rallypoints or armour; are obliged to spread their defenders out even thinner than normal, so that not only do the coalition have material superiority, but can guarantee numerical superiority EVERY SINGLE TIME too.

That sounds like a rewarding gameplay experience...

However it is also right and proper that once a cache is surrounded that it should not be able to spawn more troops, its a realism thing as once the conventional forces have cornered a cache the last thing they're gonna do is let more insurgents get in the area to defend it.

K, apply that to firebases and uncappable main-bases then...

mosinmatt wrote:The problem then is, you have humvess speading past the cache areas, then BAM! you cant spawn there anymore.
I would like to be able to spawn at caches if there are no enemies nearby, and after they hav ebeen driven back.

No, you have to get out of the humvee/vehicle before they cannot spawn on an RP and it would work the same exact way in this situation with the cache. And there is nothing currently stopping them from doing that now anyway.

Ace42 wrote:That's like saying "if you discover a firebase, you should not have to suffer the consequences".

Stumbling on a cache through patrolling rather than gathering of intelligence is intrinsically valuable. Aside from the fact that you know its exact location, and that there's a good chance it will be unprotected anyway giving you a free-cache-kill. Having waves of insurgents spawning on the cache strikes me as a small price to pay for essentially sidestepping the intel system and getting a chance at a free cache-kill.

No it doesn't. All it does is turn this back into vanilla BF2 which is what you are advocating and what is currently ingame. Having tons of insurgents spawn out of one building while it is surrounded and being fired upon/engaged only turns PR into a frag fest.

And "gathing of intelligence" means nothing. You could kill 10 insurgent SLs/Cell Leaders and the cache would show up somewhere completely seperate from their location on the map. Of course its important to gather it, but you act like the military only does things one way. No, we improvise.

So the first thing they do when they spawn on a hidden cache the opposition shouldn't know about is build up a massive signpost to say "hey, there's a cache near here!" ? Nevermind the fact that there are limitation on the number of hideouts available, etc. And if the "US/UK use better tactics to surround the cache" then a couple of insurgents spawning on it should be the smallest of problems to deal with.

That's why you hide it.......

And you really think a bunch of insurgents spawning on one spot is not going to bring attention to that location anymore than a hideout would lol? BTW, if you already have a hideout in the area that isn't close to that cache, then your first point isn't a problem since it doesn't draw attention to the cache.

I mean really, what are you suggesting? A cache gets blown, a new one spawns, and within two minutes of playing an entire squad or two has to suicide to spawn on the cache in order to be in position to defend it and build a hide-out? That hardly seems sensible...

You must not play insurgency enough because it hardly seems sensible for an entire insurgent team to spawn on a cache spot even though it is fully surrounded by an entire US/UK squad. And even with this change, it doesn't mean the US/UK squads are magically going to find caches as soon as they spawn. No, it will still take time to track those caches down.

Which is precisely what happens to revealed caches anyway, due to PR being specifically designed to penalise run-and-gunning; turning the whole thing into a game of patience with camping and scope-wars...

This change is specifically designed to change running and gunning, for both insurgents and coalition forces.

However, I don't really see what you think the problem is - it's not really possible to reveal 3 caches simultaneously, which means first one, then another, then the last cache will be revealed. That means the maximum wait is more like 1 minute 30 seconds, infinitely shorter than the amount of time you should be spending attacking the currently revealed caches rather than sneaking around trying to exploit the intelligence points meta-game system to get a free-hit on an unrevealed cache.

The problem is that almost everyone agrees that it is way to gamey for insurgents to spawn in on unrevealed caches when they are being attacked. Whether you like it or not, people are going to attack a cache when they find it. They are not suddenly going to wait 5-10 minutes for that cache to pop up nor are they going to go and gather intelligence for a cache they have already located. This will simply fix the problem of insurgents having an unfair advantage with cache defense.

And that 1:30 wait time can be used to set up hideouts, so it goes both ways.

TBH it sounds like "We want to split the insurgents up even more so that our entire team can concentrate on one cache at a time; while the insurgents, who have inferior weapons, equipment, medical support, no rallypoints or armour; are obliged to spread their defenders out even thinner than normal, so that not only do the coalition have material superiority, but can guarantee numerical superiority EVERY SINGLE TIME too.

That sounds like a rewarding gameplay experience...

And waiting for a damn marker to appear on a map is rewarding for the US/UK forces then? US/UK only have 200, maybe 250 tickets to get 10 caches in. They don't simply have time to go find, hunt down, and then kill an insurgent just for intel to go all the way back to the cache they already know about each time they find a cache that is unmarked. I am not saying they shouldn't do that because that is definately a part of insurgency, but patrolling, just like IRL is just as effective and should be rewarded just like the first method.

Answer me how is letting the insurgents spawn unlimitedly on an unmarked cache any different from the SL spawn, rallypoint spawn in past PR patches or the FOBs in past PR patches? It isn't, and those were adjusted.

K, apply that to firebases and uncappable main-bases then...

You can't spawn on firebases once they are overrun which is the same suggestion as this one...............

The problem is there is no other spawn points besides caches, so most people are going to spawn on them and be around them letting the enemy know where the cache is, it would be fine if there were random spawn points around the cache but no spawn points directly on the cache.

I just went through an encounter where we could not attack a cache because insurgents kept spawning on it. I agree with this idea.

Yea good Idea...

nick20404 wrote:The problem is there is no other spawn points besides caches, so most people are going to spawn on them and be around them letting the enemy know where the cache is, it would be fine if there were random spawn points around the cache but no spawn points directly on the cache.

There are other spawns. You have the hideouts to build and other caches that maybe in the area to spawn on. The chances of a US/UK squad finding your cache as soon as it spawns is pretty slim, so if you spawn there quickly and set up a firebase then there is no problem. Insurgents SHOULD NOT BE directly spawned in on or next to the cache during combat except in the case of a hideout because its basically like a squadleader hiding in a corner and spawning them in ala VBF2. Walking a little ways isn't a problem most of the time IMO.