Cache spawning

[Nixy23]

I think the marker radius should go back up to what it used to be (150m iirc) mainly because of the addition of mortars. Currently, the coalition doesn't even require eyes on the cache location before they begin to spam it with mortars. And, it was fun for both teams when the coalition actually had to search an area for it.

And how will changing the marker radius to 100 or 150 meters help? This is still a rather small area in-game, and chances are it will only cover one or two possible spawn locations. If the BLUFOR already know the possible locations from experience, it still isn't going to matter.

It will only work if there are numerous new spawn locations, or when it is possible for the insurgent commander to select the next cache location himself. That way you can actually -hide- the caches in a building, instead of it spawning in the middle of the street in some random bush, where a Kiowa or tank/APC can take it out from 600m away.

[Psyrus]

And how will changing the marker radius to 100 or 150 meters help? This is still a rather small area in-game, and chances are it will only cover one or two possible spawn locations. If the BLUFOR already know the possible locations from experience, it still isn't going to help.

Well the difference in search area between 40 and 150 meter radii is 14x larger (5000ish sqm vs 70000 ish sqm) which means that the area can encompass many more potential cache locations, particularly around the perimeter.

This is moot on maps like kokan where if the marker is on the ne of the map, you know it is in one of a handful of buildings, although the 150m marker would mitigate this effect considerably if it showed 140m south of that ne compound.

[Nixy23]

Well the difference in search area between 40 and 150 meter radii is 14x larger (5000ish sqm vs 70000 ish sqm) which means that the area can encompass many more potential cache locations, particularly around the perimeter.

This is moot on maps like kokan where if the marker is on the ne of the map, you know it is in one of a handful of buildings, although the 150m marker would mitigate this effect considerably if it showed 140m south of that ne compound.

That still works in two ways. In that example of Kokan there's a possibility there's multiple compounds within the 150m radius, if you place the marker 'correctly' in between them. You'd have to completely re-design the marker placement system though, to virtually make it -appear- as though the possible cache is on the edge of those 150 meters. This in turn completely negates the larger radius of the marker again, because the cache will be 125-150m away from the marker in either direction in those situations, and most likely not closer.

In a city map like Ramiel, Fallujah, Karbala or Al Basra it would work better though. 150m there is a pain to wade through in all directions in the urban area's. Then again, if the cache spawns in one of the more open locations of those maps it's not going to be hard to find it, once again.

Though keep in mind that Insurgency as it is right now will be changed severely once the UAV's are back online. The commander would only have to let the drone fly in the target area and spot the building with the largest number of hostiles. Voila, cache found.

[badmojo420]

We've had a larger cache marker radius in the past, and it worked better from my experience.

And In my opinion, the working UAV will only increase the need for a larger radius. Because like the mortars, with the current system the commander wouldn't have much trouble placing the UAV on top of the cache location first try.

I would rather have the commander find the cache because he saw insurgents running around it. At least then it involved some human interaction. And it is something that can be avoided by insurgents hiding from the potential UAV presence.

I really liked the UAV as insurgents, it forced you to actually hide from the 'eye in the sky'. I can't wait for it to be fixed.

[Rissien]

Not like they really hide anyways, still spawning at unknowns. Had one given away at docks on Ramiel last night, we were just passing by on our way north and I spotted two Insurgents running to the town.

[cheesus182]

Well you need to look at it from both teams.

Surely if you would remove the unknown and only make it be one cache at a time it would make a more focused battle but it would take too long + if you have a unorganized team your completely screwed because lonewolves will start trying to take out the cache and will obviously fail misserably.

The coalition usually loses on INS anyway except of if they have a well organized team and the other team is a bit rubbish.

So if the coalition is able to split the defense of the insurgents then I think this is a fair matter seing as it is ridiculously difficult to attack one cache at a time with your entire team being slaughtered by grenade traps, roofs full of enemies and the never ending respawning of the enemies.

[Ahzrukhal]

Here is what the current tactic is on PR as far as the Insurgents go:

Do not spawn on the unknown, because it will give it away.
-Seems logical, and makes perfect sense.
-If you aren't there, they will not know where it is, thus the Blufor will go about their marry way.

Let's think about it more critically.

In my experience on TG and Hardcore, the cache locations are already known. They are known way before the match even spawns. The game is limited. The spawns need to be changed. We are already memorizing the cache locations. I have heard form many people when i complain about cache hunting/camping. They all say to complain to the DEVS because its a game limitation.

All of the insurgent maps needs to be updated so the caches are not in the same area anymore because everyone is memorizing them and since we get yelled at and warned by admins for spawning on the unknowns, the Blufor comes and takes an "unknown" cache out.

I just played a game of Karbala. We had a known cache for the entire game. The unknowns were getting taken out left and right. I spawned on a unknown, DID NOT MOVE off of the physical cache, and it got searched by the blufor and destroyed.

"Well how did they know it was there? It must be because of the guy who spawned on it." NO!
It did not make a difference whether i spawned on it or not, the blufor was already enroute to check that area for the cache.

I am asking the Developers to fix this issue, because only they can truly fix it. Give us new cache spawns, or dont, and i will write them down, and every squad i am leader of will check every cache spawn that is not the known. We will win. and the insurgents will loose, because that is they way the game is.


I have debated this with Hardcore clan and inside TG server. H and TG all tell me to complain to the devs, not the admins, because its the way the game is. FIX IT PLEASE!

[Total_Overkill]

While i agree with you Ahzrukhal, theres just 1 quibble i have.

The cache locations have not been "memorized" . The "new" spawn coding that was implemented is broken, to the point where once blufor have 2 intel markers, a simple math equation can give them the locations of every cache that spawns after...

Yes, maths broke PR... >.<

[Bufl4x]

Yes, maths broke PR... >.<

This. The more caches blufor destroys, the easier it is to guess where the next one will be. It has been coded that way unfortunately.
But even if we didn't know the math behind it, the number of possible cache spawns is finite. It doesn't take a lot of effort to search most of them.

One possible solution would be to have only one cache at a time, or to give the insurgent team the ability to deploy caches at a location of their choosing, which could easily be abused however.

Or as others have mentioned, get rid of the intel point system and have blufor locate caches through pure recon and observation. With the possible return of the UAV, this wouldn't be so hard.

[maniac1031]

Or as others have mentioned, get rid of the intel point system and have blufor locate caches through pure recon and observation. With the possible return of the UAV, this wouldn't be so hard.

This would be a good idea except the entire insurgent team can just stay in main base or no where near the cache. Therefor the cache would never be found on a map like Gaza if it is in one of the T shaped buildings.

What if you had the cache marker get progressively smaller as you gained more intel. Say it starts out over an extremely large area and every x amount of intel points you gain it gets smaller.

[Psyrus]

This would be a good idea except the entire insurgent team can just stay in main base or no where near the cache. Therefor the cache would never be found on a map like Gaza if it is in one of the T shaped buildings.

You could argue that the same thing could happen right now. The insurgent team could just let the first of the caches go down (the known), sit in base all round and the blufor would have a very hard time winning. That happens pretty often right? No? People come to PR to have firefights?

What if you had the cache marker get progressively smaller as you gained more intel. Say it starts out over an extremely large area and every x amount of intel points you gain it gets smaller.

Pogoman's insurgency implementation on ARMA was quite interesting. The first piece of intel was like a 250m marker, then you'd get another 200m marker in the vicinity, then a 150m x 2 or 3, then 100m I think. So basically if you got two markers and with a bit of visualizing, you could pretty much knock off big chunks of where the cache could be. If pogoman didn't mind I'd love to see that implementation in PR:BF2 as it works much better IMO than the current "oh the cache is pretty much on that red marker"

[maniac1031]

You could argue that the same thing could happen right now. The insurgent team could just let the first of the caches go down (the known), sit in base all round and the blufor would have a very hard time winning. That happens pretty often right? No? People come to PR to have firefights?

No but they can just stay away from the cache when fighting. Gaza if the cache is in the city you can just stay near the entrance and fight the idf there so the idf would never find the cache.

[Brainlaag]

This would be a good idea except the entire insurgent team can just stay in main base or no where near the cache. Therefor the cache would never be found on a map like Gaza if it is in one of the T shaped buildings.

What if you had the cache marker get progressively smaller as you gained more intel. Say it starts out over an extremely large area and every x amount of intel points you gain it gets smaller.

I actually 2nd, sounds intersting or we just revert back to the old 150m? marker. As seen every day the cache markers currently are pretty much pinpointing the cache area and you don't have the fun finding it. Makes it way to easy for Blufor and every half-decent team will manage to win a INS round.

[KiloJules]

The idea of "progressive intel" indeed sounds awesome...although i just don't know about if and how this could be transfered to PR:BF2.
For some guys here i am sure it would be easy to tell.

The current 50 m marker is too close in SOME maps and for SOME caches. If you get a 50 m marker on al basrah in one of those single desert huts/houses it is just sooo easy.
I would say with the "new" radius there are maps and caches that are horrible to attack,
others are no challenge at all.

E.g. Dragon Fly INS is awesome (cause i like the map itself and the insurgency mode maybe!?)
but a lot of the caches are pain in the a** for blufor. The caches in the (western) city, sitting in the apartement buildings, are really hard to get compared to let's say one of the river ones in fallujah or a before mentioned in basrah.

On Topic itself i guess:

I would love to see the unknown spawn disabled. Although it is really helpful in some situations, in the majority of matches a couple of guys just ruin the whole game for the other 30 people. We all know the drill...

In addition i just think about not even marking the purple one so precisely. Why not just let it tell the Ins team...your next cache is on the other side of the map in that general area. Maybe sth. like 100 m or so. I know it is not the best solution but i just hate it when the team holds up good on a blue and after a couple of min some guys spawn on purple, give it away and the team then hast to split up forces even though the blufor doesn't have the required intel yet.

This is not meant as a suggestion per se. Just tossing out the thoughts.

See you guys on the fields!

[goguapsy]

I found insurgency games so much funnier (for both sides) with the smaller radius. The fight is so much more concentrated, and the action is amazing, thus I feel the game is more intense and, for that reason, cooler. I never had issues with mortars owning everything, both playing as insurgent and BLUFOR.

[Anderson29]

might this problem become solved with the player number limit being raised? another problem i see is that there is hardly any transport for insurgents....what if there was a sever penalty for destroying random civi cars that havent been used for like 2 minutes or something, if possible....cuz u have to admit that it is a tactic of blufor to just go around destroying civi cars to make it hard for insurgents to move about the map.
another problem is that taliban can only request kits from cashes. could limited kits be requested from crates or hideouts too...or instead of the cashes?????