Minumum Spawn Distance for Insurgent Caches

[llPANCHOll]

Often after destroying a Cache another will spawn in close proximity to the one that was just destroyed.
Arty dropped on a Cache location often will destroy the cache and the next one to spawn as well.
Multiple occasions I have seen a Cache destroyed only to have another respawn at your feet.

This is a detrement to gameplay.

This has to have been reported yet I cant find it in the Known Bugs section or through multiple searches.

[dbzao]

It's an issue, but not as easy to solve. Well, it's really annoying to solve actually

I will consider it.

[Nimise]

Sorry for bump but I diddnt want to start a new topic.

I was thinking:
300M apart
400M from last one
200M from 3+ enemy

[mat552]

200m from any enemy to be honest, and it shouldn't be able to spawn in the same location more than two or three times per round. There have been rounds of Archer which 8 of the caches spawned in the village, and the others spawned close to the village, or under the us positions overlooking the village. It's aggravating when a cache spawns directly in front of a squad of infantry, with absolutely zero possibilities for defense.

[Psyrus]

I don't suppose a quadrant flag on the cache rand picker could be used, making it such that two active caches will not share the same quadrant of the map? Perhaps overly simplistic but I think it would serve for better use of the entire maps. I've seen rounds where six caches have been concentrated in one quadrant, which I suppose is ok at the end of the day, but I'd prefer to have a reasonably large spread between them.

[ankyle62]

yeah it sucks but i dont think its bad enough to waste much time over fixing.

[Nimise]

yeah it sucks but i dont think its bad enough to waste much time over fixing.

It is when arty strike kills 4 caches...

[ankyle62]

never seen that, bad luck oh well.

[bad_nade]

It is when arty strike kills 4 caches...

I've seen that happen once on Archer. But those 4 caches were the only ones Americans managed to "find" and destroy in the whole round

[Nimise]

I don't suppose a quadrant flag on the cache rand picker could be used, making it such that two active caches will not share the same quadrant of the map? Perhaps overly simplistic but I think it would serve for better use of the entire maps. I've seen rounds where six caches have been concentrated in one quadrant, which I suppose is ok at the end of the day, but I'd prefer to have a reasonably large spread between them.

That would be nice. A lot of times after destroying a cache they will build a FOB in the area then another cache spawns on top of it

[Red Feniks]

The only problem I guess is that recoding the caches program (their spawnpoints are randomly chosen from a list of hundreds of possible spawnpoints, if I'm not wrong, but don't quote me on this ) takes a hell of a lot of time, but i guess it can be possible...
I don't see it happening in any of the comming patches soon however, but yes, eventually, it should be solved somehow

To whoever will try to fix this: good luck, and, again, patience is a nice virtue

Greetings,
Red Feniks

[BloodBane611]

Yes, it's annoying, but how often do the BLUFOR win insurgent maps? I haven't seen insurgents lose a map in .874 EVER. Given, that's highly anecdotal, but I just don't think it's a big enough problem to reward the work, especially given that the time could be spent coding other cool new things for PR.

[Nimise]

Yes, it's annoying, but how often do the BLUFOR win insurgent maps? I haven't seen insurgents lose a map in .874 EVER. Given, that's highly anecdotal, but I just don't think it's a big enough problem to reward the work, especially given that the time could be spent coding other cool new things for PR.

Thats a problem with the players not the game mode.
But I do think it would add a lot of variety. Instead of fighting in a village most of the time you could fight in other places more often.