Project Reality Forums

The idea in short: Assign all caches in insugency mode a difficulty rating which reflects the ease of destroying the cache/difficult of defending it.

Basically, as far as I understand it, the current system is random as to which caches appear over any given round of insurgency. Sometimes I feel this can lead to uneven gameplay. On Basrah for instance, numerous caches spawning in the open fields to the west of the city makes for an easier game for coallition forces; similarly some caches on certain insurgency maps can be a nightmare for coaltion forces to get if even a half decent defense is put up by the insurgents. If several of these appear in a round the coaliton are in for a tough time.

My 'solution' (if people consider this to a 'problem' at all?) would be to assign each cache a difficulty rating, say on a scale from 1-5 or 1-10, which would reflect a number of factors such as:

Ease of finding/level of concealment
Ease of access (The general position of ome caches can be found but remain tricky to actually get to)
Ease of defence (Some caches although not hidden that well remain in good defensive positions)
Ability of coalition to use superior firepower to secure cache area/destroy cache

etc etc, you get the idea...

These values could then be used in one of 2 ways:

A round of insurgency is played up to X number of difficuly points, caches spawn randomly until caches totalling the requisit number of diffculty points are destroyed. This would mean the number of caches is variable, could be lots of easy ones, a few difficuly ones, or a more mixed round with a mid number of caches.

Or, fixed 10 caches, but coded so they add up to a specific number of difficultly points per map. This would lead to a more predictable mix of easy medium and difficuly caches every map.

Issues:

Coding, may be difficult/impossible
Manhours, might take a good while going through each map's cache location and assigning a difficult rating per map.

Interesting idea, im very familiar with the problem that you are addressing. Best example I can think of is on Operation Archer a cache spawned in the castle. My squad simply could not get in no matter how hard we pushed cos it was such an easy position to defend, in the end I had to pull my squad back and call in a mortar strike which, aside from being quite spectacular, felt horribly like cheating. This was combined with a number of other difficult caches and an experienced insurgent team making it very very difficult indeed.

Its also a realism factor. I mean how likely is it that the insurgents in Al Basrah will hide all their caches in the middle of open fields outside the city? This may solve that inconsistency.

Whether it is possible to code your suggestion is another matter although tbh it doesn't sound massively complex. Your right about the time you'd need to do it too, might take a while

Well why don't we just tell the other team where the caches are? coalition forces shouldn't know if the cache is indoors outdoors defended high low etc.

Interesting idea but rating a cache might be hard and need to be changed (value rating) every release as players find way of making a cache not as hard as we thought.

Th3Exiled wrote:You misunderstood his suggestion nick. What he wants is for the difficulty there to be made consistent by assigning a difficulty rating for the caches which would be used only by the game to select which cache to bring into play. That way, there is no chance of a round where all the caches spawn in easy places, like, his example, the fields in basrah.

While this hasn't really bothered me, if someone ever had the time to code this in python and assign these values to the caches on each insurgency map then it might just add a bit of polish to the game mode.

However, at this time, even if the devs consider including this, i'd imagine there would be other priorities which would be much easier and less time consuming then this which would be more likely to be worked on. Though, of course since the devs tend to specialize in one or two areas perhaps we have a python coder who has nothing to do.

Exiled.

Oops guess I totally misread that!

But I am pretty sure they devs decide which places caches spawn IE caches won't spawn in the middle of the roads, but caches spawning in fields IMO are harder to find than ones inside buildings, I never really noticed all caches spawning in easy places or all caches spawning in hard places, It is usually pretty random except for maps like Operation Archer which the caches are usaully easy to find no matter where they are.

Like you said I guess it could be a thing to polish out the wrinkles but not really a big issue.

well isnt that a bit unrealistic.

If the cache difficulty rating system is not possible to make, I would be happy with just a system that would put the caches (in one game) all around the map so that in each game coalition forces would have approximately the same amount of travelling to do to cache locations (counted from the main base).

Of course "far caches" are not necessarily harder to find/destroy, but it would make the games a bit more balanced. This kind of system would also survive new game versions/players learning the map without modifications, as the difficulty rating would need to be adjusted when players learn the map better and better.

Dont forget that if a cache is in an impossible to reach position to just break off and go look for another. Insurgency is designed this way. Theres more chaches out there than you need to destroy. Dont go wasting tickets on an impossible cache.

And the problem of caches spawning in the fields can be fixed as well I think. Just remove that area spawner. I think caches are put in the map the same as flags but with a random area radius. So if they just remove the ones who are near a field that should be ok as well. Altough I dont think its a big problem. They got 7 caches left that are well defendable

EDIT:
Oh! Sorry Thomas, forgot to reply on your suggestion. I think its ok. Especially the part where you include randomness to the number of caches could be very interesting.