Forums » Bugs
NPC violations of NFZ do not trigger SF response
Tumble made a whole thread about this in Suggestions. Basically, if (while inside the NFZ) I attack an XX convoy as it tries to dock at a TPG station, the TPG SF will launch, the TPG guards will blast me, and the XX voy will shoot at me. Similarly, if I'm KOS XX, and am simply inside the station NFZ where an XX voy is docking, the XX voy will blast me inside the NFZ.
But the XX voy bots that have shot me, and violated the NFZ, will not incur the SF/guard's wrath. I think you guys actually did this deliberately, as I seem to recall this being different before. Intentional or not, however, it's wrong and needs to be fixed. If you're wanting to keep voy bots from getting shot up by the SF, don't let em shoot inside a NFZ.
But the XX voy bots that have shot me, and violated the NFZ, will not incur the SF/guard's wrath. I think you guys actually did this deliberately, as I seem to recall this being different before. Intentional or not, however, it's wrong and needs to be fixed. If you're wanting to keep voy bots from getting shot up by the SF, don't let em shoot inside a NFZ.
If you're wanting to keep voy bots from getting shot up by the SF, don't let em shoot inside a NFZ.
I agree 100%.
I agree 100%.
Yea that's probably the easiest way to fix this.
Your first scenario is expected. They will defend themselves and I think defense doesn't count against NFZ, but I'll have to check.
Your second scenario, yeah they shouldn't shoot you.
Your second scenario, yeah they shouldn't shoot you.
Er oops, i was logged into one of my test accounts when I posted that.
NFZ is ~NO~ Fire Zone. A player is set KOS even if he is defending himself. It really tolerates NO firing there.
The main points is: ALL SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY
If a player is persecuted for an NFZ violation, an NPC should be too. The only exception I can imagine are forces called to defend NFZ.
The main points is: ALL SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY
If a player is persecuted for an NFZ violation, an NPC should be too. The only exception I can imagine are forces called to defend NFZ.
NPC's are privledged - they even get cheaper subscription rates as well....
Your first scenario is expected . . . defense doesn't count against NFZ
"Expected," huh? That's rich.
You are aware that the whole "SF should/should not shoot those players who violate the NFZ in self-defense" debate was a long-running and vicious one, with prior Dev comment (and my personal opinion) coming down on the side of 'it's a NO fire zone--let the SF do their job, and don't expect any special treatment if you break the NFZ rules, regardless of your reason' . . . right?
"Expected," huh? That's rich.
You are aware that the whole "SF should/should not shoot those players who violate the NFZ in self-defense" debate was a long-running and vicious one, with prior Dev comment (and my personal opinion) coming down on the side of 'it's a NO fire zone--let the SF do their job, and don't expect any special treatment if you break the NFZ rules, regardless of your reason' . . . right?
No, Ray isn't really aware of this stuff. That's why I reply on Suggestions, mostly, and then I try to filter design->code changes back to him.
Plus "expected" doesn't necessarily mean "good". It's just him looking at how it works, as implemented. I'm sure the goal AI ("defend" actions and such) was never special-cased for NFZs (part of the problem), which is also what he's saying.
I was quite aware of the Suggestions thread, although I don't think I replied. But I hadn't gotten to converting that to codebase changes yet.
Plus "expected" doesn't necessarily mean "good". It's just him looking at how it works, as implemented. I'm sure the goal AI ("defend" actions and such) was never special-cased for NFZs (part of the problem), which is also what he's saying.
I was quite aware of the Suggestions thread, although I don't think I replied. But I hadn't gotten to converting that to codebase changes yet.