Page 1 of 1

A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 09:49
by PowerPickle
Has anyone else had this happen to them?...lol


Image

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 09:50
by Conman51
HAHA NO! I suppose it can happen though, without it being a glitch, but could be very rare

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 09:53
by Rudd
I heard you like caches so I put a cache on your cache so you can rearm while you rearm.

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 10:09
by alberto_di_gio
LOL. It's xmas campaign i guess. If you find one cache second is free! :D

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 10:20
by z0MbA
[R-CON]Rudd wrote:I heard you like caches so I put a cache on your cache so you can rearm while you rearm.
hahaha that made me lol.

yes this has happened to me, on was right ontop of the other on faluja

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 10:31
by Brummy
I've had it quite often :p

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 10:48
by PowerPickle
lol...if u notice the time is 12:00a.m. exactly on christmas.

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 11:07
by Rissien
Try the six we had spawning in the d2-d3 area on Fallujah, or the four that spawned in a row in the basement of the mansion.

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 11:53
by alberto_di_gio
'= wrote:H[=ElvishKnight;1216423']Try the six we had spawning in the d2-d3 area on Fallujah, or the four that spawned in a row in the basement of the mansion.
:shock:

well...I'm not a code guy really but can't this be prevented? Actually I'm curious if there are certain number of cache areas or every building/room can become a cache point?

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 13:29
by AaronFraher
3 that spawned in the same builing during the Ramiel PRT battle. All three taken by one arty strike.

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 15:08
by Oddsodz
AaronFraher wrote:3 that spawned in the same builing during the Ramiel PRT battle. All three taken by one arty strike.
And they was not happy at all. lol

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 15:17
by OkitaMakoto
alberto_di_gio wrote: :shock:

well...I'm not a code guy really but can't this be prevented? Actually I'm curious if there are certain number of cache areas or every building/room can become a cache point?
You can spawn a lot, but every one that you have as a potential spawn area is one networkable object. So I think we can only have a few hundred. And with the amount of rounds played in PR, its bound to happen that youll get a few grouped spawns on occassion.

Of course, this could be fixed by not having random spawns in the same house more than once and just maybe having a few less places total as a result, but tbh, its not a big deal. Just imagine that that round you had an inept INS leader or whatever ;)

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 15:32
by Harrod200
Or that your leader decided to put all their eggs in one basket. I'd consider the above a good spawn, you can get double the amount of your team there, combining your defences.

On the other hand, the enemy is all attacking one point though, but if it's a good, defendable position, that could be a gamewinning cache spawn.

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 19:14
by Psyrus
Yeah happens quite frequently

Image

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 21:34
by BloodBane611
I've very rarely seen 2 caches spawn too close or right on top of each other. However, I've heard a really lot of people annoyed about it, and if a small number of hours could be spent on fixing it, I think it would greatly improve PR.

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-25 21:58
by Noobofthenight
It doesn't happen very often, and it's because the coding just randomly selects a 'spawn point', eliminating spawn points that have been occupied is one thing, eliminating those in a geographically similar location would create a programmer's headache, as well as the mapper's, having to number them...

Re: A cache...or two

Posted: 2009-12-26 16:06
by Psyrus
Noobofthenight wrote:It doesn't happen very often, and it's because the coding just randomly selects a 'spawn point', eliminating spawn points that have been occupied is one thing, eliminating those in a geographically similar location would create a programmer's headache, as well as the mapper's, having to number them...
Image

Depending on the current implementation I don't see it as being a particularly hard issue to address, especially if it was quadrant based...