No Fire Zone behavior not as expected

[romzburg]

Yesterday I was in a depot that got captured, and the No Fire Zone rules kicked in.

This depot was a link to a town that did not even have an enemy brigade in it.

It was not an enemy spawnable.

If the No Fire Zone rules are going to stay in effect, they should *ONLY* be in effect when the depot is *actually* a spawnable.

Which means the enemy has to have a brigade in the next town.

And the enemy has to own the FB if there is one.

Let's remember the whole point of the No Fire Zone:

It is supposed to stop players from killing enemy infantry while they are in the process of spawning and not even fully in the game world yet.

So if the Depot is not an enemy spawn point based on the game's requirements, the No Fire Zone is inappropriate.

(The No Fire Zone is an awful and ham-handed solution to a problem anyway, akin to using a shotgun to kill the spiders in your own house, but that's a different thread whose impeccable logic will be ignored.)

____________

[romzburg]

This surely isn't the intended design, is it?

I have remained in a depot that was captured but not a spawnable before because it provided an excellent vantage point for my rifle as I took care of enemy ATGs, LMGs and other infantry who were spawning at the actual spawnable they had captured and were attempting to set up a perimeter.

I got 9 kills on that mission, and if I hadn't gotten those ATGs and LMGs as they were trying to set up, we might well have lost that town. (either St Tru or Tienen. I was in the St. Tru-Tienen or Tienen-St.Tru depot, can't remember which.)

Anyway, if the depot is not a spawnable, I should be able to shoot while inside, just like I can shoot inside an enemy flag building. The enemy owns it, but it isn't a spawn.

Thanks,

romzburg

______________

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.

[makrel]

Disagree Romzberg.

Remember that spawn buildings are special in that you can not enter from the outside. So it is impossible to clear a buidling like that if the enemy remains inside. All other buildings in the game are made so that someone can enter to kill you if you remain.

I think the new rules are pretty sensible. You could just leave the building when it is captured. Staying in a building where no one else can enter does not seem fair.

[Slpr]

sometimes you might just want to respawn in this cp to rearm or heal battlewounds, maybe even "warp" into town from a nearby MSP. don't think this behavior is unintented nor wrong.

so long slpr

[romzburg]

Disagree Romzberg.

Remember that spawn buildings are special in that you can not enter from the outside. So it is impossible to clear a buidling like that if the enemy remains inside. All other buildings in the game are made so that someone can enter to kill you if you remain.

I think the new rules are pretty sensible. You could just leave the building when it is captured. Staying in a building where no one else can enter does not seem fair.

If it isn't an enemy spawnable, that isn't an issue. Read again what I said. I am NOT talking about an enemy spawnable. When (if) the building becomes an enemy spawnable, fine.

_____________

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.

[romzburg]

sometimes you might just want to respawn in this cp to rearm or heal battlewounds' date=' maybe even "warp" into town from a nearby MSP. don't think this behavior is unintented nor wrong.[/quote']

Both of those are awful game abilities and need to be removed.

VERY bad gameplay, most especially the warping.

Just a horrible ability.

Definitely a "gaming-the-game" scenario, using a capped non-spawnable to warp past enemy and into town.

Using capped non-spawnables to respawn for healing or ammo is just gamey awfulness that defeats the design of the game, which is that certain Depots are links to other towns, and are REPRESENTATIVE of the real-world requirement to take and hold real estate as you assault and capture a town.

Might as well make every depot an enemy spawnable if you're going to do that junk.

This is supposed to be a war simulator, and those two abilities fly in the face of good gameplay.

The whole point of the No Fire Zone is to protect a spawning infantry player until he can actuall be in the game world.

The point is NOT to hamstring players, to artificially hand an advantage to the attackers by making weapons inoperable so they can't be shot.

This is very bad.

________________

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.

[Slpr]

and camping in a cp building, where u a, can't be killed or only under circumstances and b, with no other intention as making fraggs without any other contribution to the map is not gaming-the-game? let's at least agree we disagree.

so long slpr

[romzburg]

and camping in a cp building, where u a, can't be killed or only under circumstances and b, with no other intention as making fraggs without any other contribution to the map is not gaming-the-game? let's at least agree we disagree.

You are arguing a point I NEVER MADE.

Re-read what I said.

NOTHING I have said in ANY way resembles what you are accusing me of.

NOTHING.

If the enemy CAN'T SPAWN because that building ISN'T A SPAWNABLE, there is NO REASON for my gun to stop working.

Stop accusing me of saying crap I never said.

I never condoned spawn-camping. If you knew who you were talking to, and my history on the forums on this topic, you'd feel REALLY silly.

You have every single fact wrong in your posts.

__________________

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.

[DOC]

We appreciate the report, and the opinion. Being a bug reporting forum, we don't require an argument. While I won't say this will change before release, it might. And it might not. That decision will depend on a number of things, so arguing over it here is really not productive.

Again, we appreciate the opinion and the report, that's what the forum was intended to collect.

[GOPHUR]

Bingo. If it is enemy held it is spawnable. Besides, if they can;t come in to kill you, then you should be no fire.

No change planned.