Feedback - No Fire Zone

[frantish]

This sounds like so much attempts at late justification of something bad that was unforeseen rather than explanation of something good that was designed.

Just get rid of it until you can figure out how to do the ONE THING you are trying to do, protect the spawner.

It is not worth the tradeoff.

Why not make the spawner invulnerable for 20 seconds OR until he moves. Let him rotate in place and see if there is a camper to shoot in the face while the camper ineffectually attempts to kill him?

That is the ONLY thing we are trying to do here.

Protect the spawner.

The tradeoff is too much.

romzburg is on the mark.

The NO FIRE Zone does NOT solve the main issue, "Protect the spawner", and potentially creates a host of smaller issues.

I'm dead set against the no fire zone. It's unrealistic' date=' detracts from the game, [b']it's a solution that creates more of a problem than the problem it's intended to solve, and looks just plain stupid. It's not like the spawn camper is invincible, and it's even a bit of fun trying to outfox him. Clearing a depot adds excitement to the game, especially when a person gets pissed off at being killed spawning (the rage makes him try all the more... don't ask me how I know). Also, lag works against the camper so they can be countered. I think it's more of a whine issue (perhaps even on the part of the Rats) than a problem. But what is the cost of this solution?

You're in a spawn legitimately. The spawn gets capped, often without the players inside aware of it. So now they have a gun and a supply of ammo, but the gun won't fire. This is silly and will no doubt irritate many (consider that the beta testers might be far more understanding and forgiving than many of those in open play).

Worse yet, if the spawn gets capped while a town is still contested, the players inside no longer can defend. (That's the way it works the last I tried, if this is being changed then I'm not aware of it.)

It seems to me this whole thing is a result of some players whining. But the fix is just going to cause other players to whine, especially new players who don't understand what the purpose is. My suggestion to CRS... try not to put things into the game that upset the players if you want their subscriptions. And to this I'll add the situations where the list of weapons show weapons are available, but selecting them shows a message that there are no supplies (because a forward base got capped or a brigade was moved). Stuff like this looks phony and further complicates a very complex strategic game.

Purpose of change:

"Protect the spawner" during the 2 to 5 seconds the player's vehicle is loading and syncing into the virtual world.

Why?

Other players would set up at the spawn point KNOWING that spawner is immobile for 2-5 seconds during that spawn in, an VERY, VERY EASY target.

Solution must:

Apply to EVERY and ALL vehicles.

Proposed "no fire zone"

Does NOT help anything except Infantry, not even Para's.

This "solution" is completely biased for NON-Para infantry only.

REVOLT by old players

Expect demands by Tank drivers and Airplane flier to want NO FIRE ZONES around their spawn areas.

Confusion by NEW players

Imagine a new player is set up in a perfect spot in a Depot, finally blazing away, getting kills, and suddenly his weapon refuses to fire.

Even if he does understand the CAUSE of his weapon to stop firing, will he understand the REASON for this?

Consider

The ROOT of this ENTIRE issue is the COMPLETE VULNERABILITY.

As in the player is not just a sitting duck, but already on the menu, oven is ready, and table set.

What if the game simply gave the one spawning-in 2 to 5 second Invulnerability on spawn in?

All of a sudden the ENTIRE problem of "camping" goes away becuase it becomes much harder for the "campee".

Campee's can still "Lock down" the area, but no longer lazily stand in front of spawn point and kill spawners.

3 seconds for Infantry/Para units

5 seconds for vehicles (takes a while for vehicles to start moving)

I heard is might have been done in the first version but dropped and never used again.

That was then, 1.31 is VASTLY different.

We should try it again.

Edited April 15, 2010 by frantish

[romzburg]

Make that invulnerability a little longer but with the condition that the player cannot move off the spawn spot. They can rotate and look for a camper for 15 or 20 seconds, aim at him and shoot him.

If they hit W,A,S or D at any point in that 15 or 20 seconds, the invulnerability is nullified.

(You don't want a blanket 5 seconds, because an infantry can make it out the window and into the flag building in that amount of time in some places. So make it for 15 to 20 seconds or until he moves.)

There. Spawner is protected.

_______________

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[dekard]

All these ideas are great and have been brought up in beta as well, the way they are currently implemented was the easiest way we could fit them in without tasking the coders for more time, it was majority art changes. You guys are describing code changes, which would take immensely more time. It's not that your points and ideas aren't valid, it's just this is what we could do in the time we've been given. Speaking for myself here, I doubt we've seen the last of these changes and they'll probably be reworked and tweaked up as priorities on the code type people are alleviated a bit. Right now, just bear with us and know both Ramp and Martini are both swamped, and KFS1 is so busy we rarely even see him. So, we are doing what we can with what we got..

Make that invulnerability a little longer but with the condition that the player cannot move off the spawn spot. They can rotate and look for a camper for 15 or 20 seconds, aim at him and shoot him.

If they hit W,A,S or D at any point in that 15 or 20 seconds, the invulnerability is nullified.

(You don't want a blanket 5 seconds, because an infantry can make it out the window and into the flag building in that amount of time in some places. So make it for 15 to 20 seconds or until he moves.)

There. Spawner is protected.

_______________

Edited April 15, 2010 by DEKARD

[frantish]

Make that invulnerability a little longer but with the condition that the player cannot move off the spawn spot. They can rotate and look for a camper for 15 or 20 seconds, aim at him and shoot him.

If they hit W,A,S or D at any point in that 15 or 20 seconds, the invulnerability is nullified.

(You don't want a blanket 5 seconds, because an infantry can make it out the window and into the flag building in that amount of time in some places. So make it for 15 to 20 seconds or until he moves.)

There. Spawner is protected.

That is an idea, but that means more code make work, maybe later effort.

If 3 seconds for Inf is too long, then 2 will work.

It will be nearly impossible to get out of dept into a flag building in 3 seconds,

2 it will be.

[romzburg]

All these ideas are great and have been brought up in beta as well' date=' the way they are currently implemented was the easiest way we could fit them in without tasking the coders for more time, it was majority art changes. You guys are describing code changes, which would take immensely more time. It's not that your points and ideas aren't valid, it's just this is what we could do in the time we've been given. Speaking for myself here, I doubt we've seen the last of these changes and they'll probably be reworked and tweaked up as priorities on the code type people are alleviated a bit. Right now, just bear with us and know both Ramp and Martini are both swamped, and KFS1 is so busy we rarely even see him. So, we are doing what we can with what we got.. [/quote']

I understand what you are saying about coding.

We had this discussion many, many months ago, we brought up the exact points we are bringing up now (except back then it was NOT made clear that this would apply to ALL depots, it was focused on the spawnable-link-depot, and paratroops). I personally was roundly excoriated by one specific CRS member because I referred to the proposal offhandedly as a "plan" when I pointed out the problems with "your plan", and he told me it was NOT a "plan" because they had just started talking about it and had not put it on the to-do list. As if describing a proposed solution to something can't be called a "plan" so you can compare different "plans" to see which is best. Semantic argument = FAIL. He never did address any of my actual points, only snarkily made that semantic argument.

And here it is months later, implemented EXACTLY as the original PLAN was proposed in function, and so broadly implemented in practice it is even worse than originally described.

Anyway, we pointed out the serious flaws in that plan.

CRS had three choices:

1) Ignore the feedback and go with the flawed plan.

2) Come up with a better plan with no, or at least fewer or smaller flaws.

3) Do nothing at all.

They should have done nothing.

We told them.

This solution is worse than the original problem, and we told them.

________________

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[damele]

I logged in under a different account buy anyways.

I noticed that some times when I ran onto the roof I was able to fire. maybe this is something you want to keep or not but all someone has to do is take a LMG and sit outside the roof door and Blammy no more fun. S!

[hick]

I logged in under a different account buy anyways.

I noticed that some times when I ran onto the roof I was able to fire. maybe this is something you want to keep or not but all someone has to do is take a LMG and sit outside the roof door and Blammy no more fun. S!

yea, the balcony is no-fire, roof tiles are still free fire. This is intentional.

[yokilla]

Now that CRS has implemented a fix for the problem of protecting the spawner, one can expect that they will finish and polish this fix and not consider another until this fix turns into a problem that is, at least, as pressing as the current spawn camping problem.

I'd like to remind you that the spawn camping problem has been on the shelf for a very very long time.

I like this fix. It works. There may be better fixes but this is the one, on which, they spent their tiny resources. CRS rarely abandons a course of action after going to the lengths of trouble necessary to present their labor to the public. In other words; odds are, if it's in beta it ain't gonna go away anytime "soon".

Edited April 17, 2010 by yokilla

[twobad44]

while the focus was totally on how to protect the spawner it seems like they disregard the guy whole legally spawned into the depot .Thier now forcing him to run out of a building out of cover or telling him to despawn and go some where else, dont fight by degunning him. tough problem no easy answer. romzburg nice accurate reply to the issue that will be coming up. the idea was to _protect the spawner now your giving them the area free while also removing enemy combatants.

[speed]

Not acceptable in any way.I cannot be penalized in any way from spawning in a depot,supressing incoming EI,and ninja cappers take my depot(non spawnable for them),I am unable to defend myself or my town.

The rule must only apply to linked depots(EI spawn CP),that or nothing.You are denying my game play and options of supressing the incoming EI.

This option is not going to help or resolve a minor issue.Drop it please!Our playability factor will be largely affected by this silly concept.

Until a major code change can be done,when time permits,leave it as it is,for the sake of the game,please!

S!

Speed

Let me edit this;

-I see an ant trail incoming,set position to kill ei..bamm! depot captured..no fire zone.

-I set watch on adjecent depot for spawnable CP,they cap spawn CP,I shoot outcoming EI to other depots&AB..bamm! depot captured..no fire zone.

-even if I setup a 232 or a pan,I cannot defend the CP,because the enemy are inside the depot

-This favors the attackers more than the defenders,thus my opinion of removing this feature,until a better soluion is envisioned.Please drop it.

Edited April 19, 2010 by speedbird

[frantish]

Since we will have No Fire Zones, why do we need to have the one-way stairs for the Inf and Depot spawnables?

After all, the need for one-way only exit in AB Inf spawn, FB Inf Spawn, and Depot was to prevent Spawn Camping.

Now we have NFZ, so lets put those stairs in and use those buildings just like other buildings as a defense point!

(anyone else see the irony?)

[sasquach]

The very worse part is a building that gets capped in a town not yet owned by the enemy. The people left in the building can no longer defend. I don't get upset when I spawn into a newly capped building and get shot... it's actually fun to try to outwit the camper. But I do get seriously T'ed off when I'm defending my town from a depot and suddenly my gun won't fire. I suggest turning off no fire zones and fix the camping issue down the road when some you have time to do some code mods.

the defenders always get the shaft

sasquach

[GOPHUR]

Since we will have No Fire Zones' date=' why do we need to have the one-way stairs for the Inf and Depot spawnables?

After all, the need for one-way only exit in AB Inf spawn, FB Inf Spawn, and Depot was to prevent Spawn Camping.

Now we have NFZ, so lets put those stairs in and use those buildings just like other buildings as a defense point!

(anyone else see the irony?)

Good point.

[GOPHUR]

But...

Then do we make the stairs no fire zones too?

[dekard]

But...

Then do we make the stairs no fire zones too?

The stairs now are no fire as well. but if we are going into 'model' stairs that don't currently exist why not model the whole building over getting the 1.31 updated look... instead of adding new geometry to an older building.

You may call it irony, but it's practicality. It's easy to add a comment to geometry to make it a nofire zone in art, it's more of an issue to 'create' geometry where none has existed before.

Edited May 4, 2010 by DEKARD

[clone9cz]

Eh, stairs. Don't arrange stairs where the windows are ... we are not architect on LSD in Europe

[Oswald]

This new implement seems it will bring tons of smaller issues instead of one minor one.

Oh well as long as I can Vickers you from the outside...

[speed]

Is the roof a free fire zone? If not,make it so.The remaining infantry inside the spawn point will have to exit the depot or go to the roof,if he wants to continue to defend the CP,but aware that,if it is a enemy spawn,the first place they will look,will be the roof to clear the CP.

This will ensure the spawn point is covered&protected.Spawning infantry will have the time to evade the building or secure the depot,his choice,thus,giving both opponents the liberty of deciding where to go and what to do.

If you decide to stay in a spawnable cp when caputered,you will be aware if you head to the roof,that the eney will clear out the depot as a SOP first thing.

If it is NOT a spawn CP(for the enemy),we will be forced to go to the rooftop to defend the CP,easy target to kill,by experience.That leaves the window snipers no room for defending incoming enemies or covering for recapping the CP.This is where,in my opinion,only linked enemy spawnables should have NFZ's

Same priciple applies to the AB inf spawns.They will remain campable and entry free for the enemy so,they too,should have a NFZ for the camper,enter the spawn,cant shoot.

We will have half resolved and AB spawn still campbables...denying our exit from the barrack

If they can enter and shoot me downstairs in the barracks,I have the right to do the same on the depot.

S!

Speed

[hick]

Is the roof a free fire zone? If not,make it so.The remaining infantry inside the spawn point will have to exit the depot or go to the roof,if he wants to continue to defend the CP,but aware that,if it is a enemy spawn,the first place they will look,will be the roof to clear the CP.

This will ensure the spawn point is covered&protected.Spawning infantry will have the time to evade the building or secure the depot,his choice,thus,giving both opponents the liberty of deciding where to go and what to do.

If you decide to stay in a spawnable cp when caputered,you will be aware if you head to the roof,that the eney will clear out the depot as a SOP first thing.

If it is NOT a spawn CP(for the enemy),we will be forced to go to the rooftop to defend the CP,easy target to kill,by experience.That leaves the window snipers no room for defending incoming enemies or covering for recapping the CP.This is where,in my opinion,only linked enemy spawnables should have NFZ's

Same priciple applies to the AB inf spawns.They will remain campable and entry free for the enemy so,they too,should have a NFZ for the camper,enter the spawn,cant shoot.

We will have half resolved and AB spawn still campbables...denying our exit from the barrack

If they can enter and shoot me downstairs in the barracks,I have the right to do the same on the depot.

S!

Speed

yes, roofs, but not the little balcony thingy, are free-fire zones.