Project Reality Forums

Does stuff like this look working as intended?



Also, is putting roadblock on TOP of cache(high enough so it extends down to cover the cache without breaking it) considered legitimate tactic?

ComradeHX wrote:Does stuff like this look working as intended?

lol its amazing how much rubbish people leave on the streets

That one might be a bit tricky to solve but will look into it

Probably one of the consequences of making the deployable easier to deploy

ComradeHX wrote:Also, is putting roadblock on TOP of cache(high enough so it extends down to cover the cache without breaking it) considered legitimate tactic?

Ye, we have seen that too. We are thinking of making it so you can't deploy any deployable within 5m or 10m of a cache to stop this, as well as another exploit.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:lol its amazing how much rubbish people leave on the streets

That one might be a bit tricky to solve but will look into it

Probably one of the consequences of making the deployable easier to deploy



Ye, we have seen that too. We are thinking of making it so you can't deploy any deployable within 5m or 10m of a cache to stop this, as well as another exploit.

But wouldn't it make sense as it simulates burying of weapons cache?

Sure, it's harder for BluFor to get onto it; but it's also made inaccessible for insurgents so they can't resupply/get kits from it.

I would be fine with not allowing deployable directly on top of cache(because today some retards tried to deploy it on cache directly and blew it up), but 5m seems like too much(because some cache locations are just that bad.

Would be interesting to see if other people thinking burring the cache is a legitimate tactic, although IMO its not a good idea to use the roadblocks for this either way and if we where going to keep it, would be a special pile of dirt you could deploy on top of the cache, but tbh, I can't see how it would help your team since any explosives placed on it would still destroy the cache when they go off in the same way players use to plan C4 outside of buildings to destroy caches inside of them.

ComradeHX wrote:Does stuff like this look working as intended?

awesome. more of that shit. creative matches. beats the hell out of parking 3 fake gary's, 4 clown cars and an ammo techie on the cache. used car lot defense advanced strategies v2

Haha holy shit that is huge.

I guess this is something for the admins to consider if it is allowed.

I saw a foxhole built right on cache yesterday in Sbeneh INS. It camouflaged it pretty well I guess it was Korean / Japanese players

I searched the cache for good time (I was INS) before I noticed it was in the foxhole. You wouldn't really expect that lel. I thought placements would destroy the cache..

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Would be interesting to see if other people thinking burring the cache is a legitimate tactic, although IMO its not a good idea to use the roadblocks for this either way and if we where going to keep it, would be a special pile of dirt you could deploy on top of the cache, but tbh, I can't see how it would help your team since any explosives placed on it would still destroy the cache when they go off in the same way players use to plan C4 outside of buildings to destroy caches inside of them.

I thought C4 needs to be placed on cache now?

Or is it just the small C4?

It's a thin line between making deployables have ease of use and enabling glitching

The PR community's inginuity in misuing assets will never cease to amaze me

It's a feature.....to keep the white walkers out.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:It's a thin line between making deployables have ease of use and enabling glitching

The PR community's inginuity in misuing assets will never cease to amaze me

It took a while to figure out where to place it to make it work.

Just block a bit of those panels stacked on top of house of pain and it （block over wall）will fail.

I once saw a whole building blocked out completely with insurgents firing unlimited PKM, RPK and RPG out the windows.

Sure, you could just shoot inside with an IFV or get a C4 outside, but still, what.

This needs to be toned down a bit, but I do like how assets can be used in PR.

It should be easier to see exactly where your asset is going to go instead of this.

it's simple. the good servers wont allow that kind of excessive, gameplay breaking glitch.
maybe try joining one of those servers, or encourage your admins to discuss this.

That tactic is already high-risk. You are able to destroy the cache if you place the foxhole/roadblock on top of it. I've seen it happen already. Shouldn't be too big of a problem.

Also, if you have someone with a combat engi it shouldn't be a problem to destroy the roadblocks as you're clearing out the cache. You'll probably blow up the cache along with the roadblock.

I also think it's mainly the SAs job to prevent these type of glitches.

Stuff like that is always possible due to the way our deployables work but I think the advantages weight out their disadvantages.

I hope it isn't considered abuse, it's just a high placed asset that the blufor can often pull off as well. That is not to mention that with 9x potential squads with breachers (2x c4 packs each) and a multitude of other large firepower options, a destructible wall shouldn't be considered a glitch They are even called 'roadblocks', and although traditionally we think of roadblocks as blocking just a road, why not a path too?

Burying the cache is not ok IMO, so the 5-10m check is legit, since you can still get it very close to the cache from that distance without glitching and making the cache impossible to see.

The building on the left was totally blocked on its 4 sides by massive roadblocks. And in almost every INS map is common to see roadblocks on top of the caches.

The roadblock idea was good but I think it?s not working like it should.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Psyrus;2083795']I hope it isn't considered abuse, it's just a high placed asset that the blufor can often pull off as well. That is not to mention that with 9x potential squads with breachers (2x c4 packs each) and a multitude of other large firepower options, a destructible wall shouldn't be considered a glitch They are even called 'roadblocks', and although traditionally we think of roadblocks as blocking just a road, why not a path too?

Burying the cache is not ok IMO, so the 5-10m check is legit, since you can still get it very close to the cache from that distance without glitching and making the cache impossible to see.[/quote]

I've seen Blufor glitch deployables on top of water towers and no admin took care of it before.

So I got squad of civi and bolt action rifle(pre-nerf) to kill it.

Insurgents don't have such things and SPG-9 has very little depression; so it's not gamebreaking.

[quote="pedrooo14""]



The building on the left was totally blocked on its 4 sides by massive roadblocks. And in almost every INS map is common to see roadblocks on top of the caches.

The roadblock idea was good but I think it?s not working like it should.[/quote]


I don't see the problem.

It's realistic in that people can bury weapon(cache) underground IRL, we can't do it here so it has to be a huge wall of trash.

I was against it at first, but its a good way to prevent someone rushing in while prepping. Now you actually have to secure the location.

[R-DEV]Rabbit wrote:I was against it at first, but its a good way to prevent someone rushing in while prepping. Now you actually have to secure the location.

This 123