Battlezone 1

Was it intentional?

Seeing how after almost 12 years we found out that MDM wasn't meant to be rechargable, I figured better to ask Ken about some other unclear things in BZ, than to jump ahead and make wrong conclusions about something being a bug or not.

This topic should be simple, we ask Ken if something is a bug, he says yes or no and then we move to a next question. If it is a bug, new topic will be made and the discussion will move there.

Answering questions is fun, though. It gives me something to do when I'm taking a break.

It might be worth having a couple of categories and move topics to the appropriate categories as necessary. That way the forum stays a little cleaner. I'll leave the exact categories for others to decide,

I'm not new to BZ at all, I've been playing it since HEAT.NET in 1998 when it came with my flaming fast P][ 450 Mhz computer. I've only been "reintroduced." I test things how the person says it occurs, I don't carry a qualified QA title on my belt, neither does anyone else(?) here.



If I know information concerning an issue or know where to find the information to potentially help someone with an issue, I will post it. If something looks odd and I want to share it, I will so that everyone may chip in with "bug" declarations or "it's meant to be that way" comments. In the end, it is really Ken to decide if it was intentional or if it really is a game glitch/bug.



As for scrap making, if Ken decides to roll with turning a players units/buildings (still standing units, and and scrap not yet collected) back to collectible scrap once he/she exits, this would [more than likely] be enough scrap for a new comer to utilize so that they don't need to resort to scrap making. Scrap making was probably meant to prevent the game becoming a stale mate. Eventually it'd turn into an on-foot fight, which I wouldn't mind at all

As for "Was it intentional?", here goes...

Was it intentional...

...that I can select my Constructor and point at another one of my units, but cannot order the constructor to follow that unit? (I can only tell Constructor to Follow ME).

...that units following me as a pilot have to be told to follow again when I enter a vehicle?

...that pilots cannot grab repair or ammo packs... in DM? In strat? This is a silly one, I was thinking on being able to reload sniper in DM without a vehicle.

...that enemy AI pilot entering my empty vehicle in multiplayer strat disappears?

...that CCA repair pack is indestructible?

...that kills via splinter's bullets don't count for credit?

...that sniped pilot in single player has its dot disappear, but dot is still visible in MP until pilot disappears? (allowing multiple kills)

Now remember, I'm not saying change is needed or wanted on any of these, I'm just asking if they were intentional.

That's quite the list.

Short answer: none of those was intentional with the arguable exception of pilots not being able to use repair or ammo packs.


That was probably an oversight on my part.


Your pilot character gets deleted upon entering a vehicle, so units following you lose their follow target.


On the other hand, pilots do get free repair and ammo upon entering and leaving vehicle. Tanks can't do that...





Good thing the CCA didn't make their vehicles out of the same material!


Whoops! My fault...


Network bug, presumably.

Sorry, I got carried away.
Sometimes I can be very obsessive compulsive. (Especially when I write code, hehe)


I agree pilots don't need to be able to get ammo and repair packs. (Except in TRO Chinese #7, they CAN! MUHAHAHA!)


Kills for splinter's bullets aren't terribly important, maybe you should just leave it.


Yeah, if I exit my vehicle and an enemy AI pilot enters it, the vehicle will still be empty. Same if my AI pilot enters empty enemy vehicle. Once I "claim" the enemy vehicle by entering it myself, my pilot can drive it. (low priority, haven't heard anybody else complain. )


The MP pilot dot thing isn't terribly important either, but you should fix it if it isn't too hard to fix. (low priority)


I'm already used to re-issuing follow command when entering vehicle. Once again, just a silly question.

People please, don't post about scrapmaking here anymore. We are waiting on a Stahl's answer or on Miller's (if Stahl won't remember). If scrapmaking turns out to be an unintentional exploit we'll make a separate scrapmaking topic and discuss it there. If not, we'll leave it as it is. Until we don't get the needed answer, from the original BZ programmers/designers, I'll keep moving all scrapmaking posts to the original scrapmaking thread.

I wasn't sure whether to make a topic or not, but recently I get "<error> Send buffer full; message not sent" while chatting in MP lobby. Seems to happen a lot more when Chet sits in lobby with me banned. Only possible cause I can think of, as normally it's not such a problem.

Well? Was getting rid of it intentional? I'd like it back.

Weapons in MP are stronger than in SP (on hard). For example, full MAG strength should be 1450 (ODF value), but it is around 1750. Intentional?

I would bet so. I don't know for sure, because I'm not the ultimate authority, but it would seem to me that making weapons weaker is one way of making the mode "hard."

I'll look into exactly what the difficulty setting affects, since now I'm curious.

The damage from remote tanks are multiplied by 7/6. A funny thing can happen when two people shoot each other with dual mag at (almost) the same time. The one that is hit first gets the extra damage, while the other tank can survive (with 0 hull).

BTW, who is babyg?

I think that was the name George Collins used in multiplayer during development.

They are also stronger than in SP on medium. Medium is as close as it comes to MP weapon strength. In single player on easy, the weapons are ridiculously strong, and repair packs and ammo packs are free.

If the code was written to multiply damage by the fraction 7/6, then it seems that it was intentional. I'm guessing they were maybe trying to compensate a tiny bit for lag and packet loss.

That's the best explanation I could come up with too.