02-03-2015, 11:10 AM
(02-02-2015, 05:59 PM)McGregor link Wrote:The final straw was when I died exiting the rubber boat on SPhoenix mission (I think). I subsequently rage quitted. Well not really "rage" but I'd had enough by then. Too bad, it seemed like a cool mission. Oh well shit happens and I'll be back with a vengeance on Thursday.Damn, had I noticed I'd have done a quick restart. Guys, if someone dies due to a bug or a disconnection and anything that is "natural" within the game universe, let me know. Especially if it's in the beginning of the mission, and especially if you died so often before. Use Steam chat since dead guys can't talk now.
(02-02-2015, 11:44 PM)doveman link Wrote:So maybe we do need to allow players to fire on their own initiative but we need to be careful that we don't end up with people firing whenever they feel like and pissing off the leaders who've told them to hold fire.We never meant to "allow players to fire on their own initiative". Maybe I wasn't completely clear so let me rephrase the rule: Never open fire on the enemy without ordered to, unless you or another friendly unit are under a direct and immediate threat.
(02-02-2015, 11:44 PM)doveman link Wrote:We might also want to look at amending the Server Rules as it clearly says here http://ciahome.net/server-rules/ "Donât open fire without being ordered" although here http://ciahome.net/forum/coop-nights-int...workshop)/ it says it's OK to fire without permission if you're threatened.Right, corrected!
(02-03-2015, 03:44 AM)doveman link Wrote:No question, Den did the right thing to return fire there. What I'm worried about is if we start saying that it's up to each player to decide when there's a threat, not necessarily shooting at us or even aware, then there's going to be a lot of conversations along the lines of "what the hell are you doing, I said hold fire", " but I saw a threat", "well, OK then" and it could make it that much harder for leaders to maintain order.I do not share your concerns. The player base of the CiA coop nights is well capable of understanding the meaning of "direct and immediate threat".
(02-03-2015, 03:44 AM)doveman link Wrote:Just saying, I don't think we shouldn't let my useless leading displayed in Gwyn's video change our SOP radically. Sure, there will be occasions where players can see something that the leader can't and if there's sufficient immediate threat they should feel free to fire without permission but that should very much be the exception and if there's time, they should advise the leader of the nature of the threat and ask for orders, whilst still having the right to fire without permission or even if permission is refused by the leader, if the situation suddenly changes and the threat justifies doing so. Otherwise we could have situations where a leader is aware of a threat and has a plan to avoid it or get in a better position to deal with it but someone gets trigger happy, alerts the enemy to our presence and ruins the leader's plan (which he may not have had time to explain to the team yet).You wrote a lot of things here in a very long sentence but let me try to put some order into the confusion. Let's not confuse routine with cases of "direct and immediate danger".
First, if there's time, as you put it, the exception rule of having an "immediate threat" does not apply, and therefore should be treated as the general rule of holding fire unless told otherwise, so this is not relevant to this discussion. For example, if you see an enemy running in the distance and you suspect that he's in combat mode, that does not constitute as immediate and direct danger. However, if an enemy is close, draws his weapon and takes aim, or suddenly detected in a very close range, sure, take him out even if the team is under hold fire. You are OBLIGATED to do so.
Second, in "immediate and direct threat conditions" we definitely do not expect people to report to the leader before protecting themselves or the team to remove that threat. There's simply not enough time for communication under these cases, and if there is, the situation does not constitute as "immediate" and therefore should be treated in the common manner of providing a contact report and waiting for instructions from the leader.
Your explanation to the situation on Gwyn's video demonstrates that clearly. As you said, you were not in a position to determine whether the situation is dangerous so you ordered to hold fire. However, given that the threat was significant and immediate, McGregor should have opened fire regardless of your orders. Explanations should always come after responses to immediate and direct danger situations, never before them. You are about to be detected and/or fired upon? Shoot. If you are capable of talking while firing, report as you fire. If not, keep your explanations to after the firefight.
The fewer men, the greater share of honor