Jump to content

Photo

Smoke Breaks Line Of Sight


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#21
Gabacho

Gabacho
  • 145 posts

Con, what is your email?

 

Is this it? - support@deadzonegame.com

 

I have not ever received a reply from any of my emails, although they seem to go through. ? : (


  • 0

#22
Agrippas

Agrippas
  • 181 posts

Con, I have a question though. And sorry if it isn't about this topic. I thought defenders in towers were able to target survivors outside of smoke screen. Although I'm not to sure of this, because I just returned to playing the game after a year or so, and I just started going back into raiding (And I hope to stay for the rest of your updates, too! By the way, excellent job you've done so far!). But, for example, Let's just say there's a particular spot in a compound where there are 3 defenders on barricades, and 1 in a tower. If I'm getting suppressed, I would throw a smoke in front of my barricade from which I spawned, which would prevent the 3 defenders on barricades, but the person in the tower would still be able to fire at my group, since the survivors aren't in the smoke, but yet behind the smoke. Wasn't/Isn't it like this? Or at least an idea was proposed like this on the forums? I'm just not too sure. 

 

If you could respond, or someone else, that would be great. I want to stay playing the game and get active in raiding. But engineering studies takes a lot of my time lol.


  • 0

#23
Con

Con
  • 4,150 posts

Con, I have a question though. And sorry if it isn't about this topic. I thought defenders in towers were able to target survivors outside of smoke screen.

 

Depends on the distance and angle. They can see over smoke in some cases. 



#24
Salacious

Salacious
  • 68 posts

Anywaaaaaay, we're looking at a fix that will allow your guys to prepare in smoke, but not allow the old exploit to be available. 

 

Also, high end survivability in raids has been an issue for a long time. I'm working to address it. A lot of the issues we have with raids boil down to the fact that your guys go down so quickly if they're hit. 

This is all we are asking, most raiders want nothing to do with exploits.  The smoke and setup was necessary because of how quick and short some fights are at level 55.  The elimination of the exploit is very important obviously.  Aknowledgement of how survival in raids has changed over the years is a sign your design team has a good understanding of raiders current concerns.  Thanks for all the effort for the raiding 1% of the community.


  • 1

#25
Cherry

Cherry
  • 792 posts

Anywaaaaaay, we're looking at a fix that will allow your guys to prepare in smoke, but not allow the old exploit to be available. 

 

Also, high end survivability in raids has been an issue for a long time. I'm working to address it. A lot of the issues we have with raids boil down to the fact that your guys go down so quickly if they're hit. 

 

Much appreciated, Con :)

 

The recent changes are really annoying and making me fail raids ... guess some others already explained why it is.


  • 1

#26
Maruse

Maruse
  • 742 posts

Well that's just great now I can't raid the way I prefer to raid anymore. 


  • -2

#27
Con

Con
  • 4,150 posts

Well that's just great now I can't raid the way I prefer to raid anymore. 

 

Have another read. 

 

"we're looking at a fix that will allow your guys to prepare in smoke, but not allow the old exploit to be available"



#28
Maruse

Maruse
  • 742 posts

Have another read. 

 

"we're looking at a fix that will allow your guys to prepare in smoke, but not allow the old exploit to be available"

 

Will the ''preparing'' involve some kind off auto reload so you can have fully loaded guns when the smoke drops and not weapons at half mag?


  • 0

#29
Gabacho

Gabacho
  • 145 posts

Will the ''preparing'' involve some kind off auto reload so you can have fully loaded guns when the smoke drops and not weapons at half mag?

Agreed, we need to maintain control over attackers Con. The AI mechanics are currently easier to control on defense than offense. Please consider offering 1 spawn location where the attackers automatically "hold their fire". Whether or not defenders are in range or not. Bare minimum we need this smoke back. I do not understand why it is so horrible to be able to tell your attackers not to shoot back. It is a realistic strategy, one that should be an option. Especially when melee's are so prevalent in defenses now. I want all the exploits gone as well. However I also would like as much control over my attackers as possible, including telling them to hold their fire.

Please consider this. I will happily provide videos showing why this is needed.


  • 1

#30
Lanceyy

Lanceyy
  • 219 posts

Con, we're not accusing you of "taking over the world". We are however saying that you tend to listen to only SOME of us instead of ALL of us and that this change, which affects ALL of us was made by listening to just SOME of us! And that this is happening ALL the time and WAY too often and that we find it unfair and frustrating!

 

 

http://forum.conarti...t-please/page-1

 

 

Maybe your alliance should actually argue their postion in forum threads like this, where we are trying to get Con to fix exploits/bugs in the game, if you dont consider them exploits. You, Wurstl,Wolfhound and maybe other members of S0N all participated in this thread and none of you argued against our proposed changes.

Shooting building out sight was also shortly discussed in this thread, after your member Wolfhound asked about it, again none of you argued against it being an exploit.

 

I am not sure what other exploits or bugs you wanted to keep around and think our alliance responsible of getting fixed lately, but i am happy to listen if you want to name any you still wanted around.


Edited by Lanceyy, 29 July 2016 - 12:46 PM.

  • 0

#31
Maruse

Maruse
  • 742 posts

http://forum.conarti...t-please/page-1

 

 

Maybe your alliance should actually argue their postion in forum threads like this, where we are trying to get Con to fix exploits/bugs in the game, if you dont consider them exploits. You, Wurstl,Wolfhound and maybe other members of S0N all participated in this thread and none of you argued against our proposed changes.

Shooting building out sight was also shortly discussed in this thread, after your member Wolfhound asked about it, again none of you argued against it being an exploit.

 

I am not sure what other exploits or bugs you wanted to keep around and think our alliance responsible of getting fixed lately, but i am happy to listen if you want to name any you still wanted around.

 

 

The thing with you Lancey is that you pretty much want's to be a god in this game with your guns and just simply can't handle the fact that players know ways to beat you. 

 

So in the end you call everything an exploit because your brain can't handle the fact that players simply are you better than you despite your guns.


  • 0

#32
Lanceyy

Lanceyy
  • 219 posts

The thing with you Lancey is that you pretty much want's to be a god in this game with your guns and just simply can't handle the fact that players know ways to beat you. 

 

So in the end you call everything an exploit because your brain can't handle the fact that players simply are you better than you despite your guns.

 

it would be nice if you could actually dispute anything i said in my post and not just try to insult me


  • 0

#33
Maruse

Maruse
  • 742 posts

it would be nice if you could actually dispute anything i said in my post and not just try to insult me

Shooting building out sight was also shortly discussed in this thread, after your member Wolfhound asked about it, again none of you argued against it being an exploit

 

The thing with you Lancey is that you pretty much want's to be a god in this game with your guns and just simply can't handle the fact that players know ways to beat you. 

 

So in the end you call everything an exploit because your brain can't handle the fact that players simply are you better than you despite your guns.

 

Happy?


  • 0

#34
Cherry

Cherry
  • 792 posts

*snip*

 

Oh well ... you found a new thread for trolling?


  • 1

#35
Crr

Crr
  • 11 posts

http://forum.conarti...t-please/page-1

 

 

Maybe your alliance should actually argue their postion in forum threads like this, where we are trying to get Con to fix exploits/bugs in the game, if you dont consider them exploits. You, Wurstl,Wolfhound and maybe other members of S0N all participated in this thread and none of you argued against our proposed changes.

Shooting building out sight was also shortly discussed in this thread, after your member Wolfhound asked about it, again none of you argued against it being an exploit.

 

I am not sure what other exploits or bugs you wanted to keep around and think our alliance responsible of getting fixed lately, but i am happy to listen if you want to name any you still wanted around.

 

Here's the thing, Lancey: it's a flash game, there will always be bugs and stuff in it (like when a survivor gets all suppressed and takes no damage, in which moment i would've normally shoot at a random barricade until he got out of suppression - and that is something like a random bug, i doubt it can be fixed). If all we do is constantly requesting Con to delete this or that feature just because we think it helps others take down our pounds, we end up in a situation like this one when one important feature of the game, the ability to aim while in smoke, is affected and this affects the whole raiding community that should probably thank you now for "fixing" this for all of us! I really hope Con can fix it, and this is just a trial run..


  • 0

#36
Lanceyy

Lanceyy
  • 219 posts

Maruse, if your last post is meant to say shooting at buildings wasnt discussed shortly in the thread i linked please read

 

http://forum.conarti...lease/?p=133672


  • 0

#37
Maruse

Maruse
  • 742 posts

Maruse, if your last post is meant to say shooting at buildings wasnt discussed shortly in the thread i linked please read

 

http://forum.conarti...lease/?p=133672

 

It's not an exploit it's a tactic.


  • 1

#38
Lanceyy

Lanceyy
  • 219 posts

It's not an exploit it's a tactic.

 

thats exactly what i just said you should have argued for in this thread.....

 

i am done talking to you in here since all you do is troll and try to insult me


Edited by Lanceyy, 29 July 2016 - 03:54 PM.

  • -1

#39
Maruse

Maruse
  • 742 posts

thats exactly what i just said you should have argued for in this thread.....

 

i am done talking to you in here since all you do is troll and try to insult me

 

Hmmm I clearly remember that you were gonna try and have wolfhound banned because it was an ''exploit'' and now you are also calling it a tactic. 

 

Very interesting. Also very interesting how the time it takes for you to raid me went from 2 minutes to 6 minutes when reloading was disabled. 


  • 0

#40
Cherry

Cherry
  • 792 posts

It's not an exploit it's a tactic.

 

You read this thread? No?

 

Con himself called it a bug ... keep on defending it as tactics!

 

Hmmm I clearly remember that you were gonna try and have wolfhound banned because it was an ''exploit'' and now you are also calling it a tactic. 

 

Very interesting. Also very interesting how the time it takes for you to raid me went from 2 minutes to 6 minutes when reloading was disabled. 

 

Lancey didn't say it is a tactic ... he just asked you to argue in the thread he mentioned.

You might want to read twice and start thinking before writing.

 

Mind to show some raid logs of decreased raid times?

Maybe long rifle and close spawn raid ... so raid time differs?

 

Good luck trolling here :)


  • 0