Bannable offmapping

[A Former User]

And no, a regular player does not know that the code considers wrecks to be units. Does it, though?

[ThomasHiatt]

I don't think causing wrecks to go off map has ever actually been considered against the rules, but it probably should be. Really the game team should just make off map reclaim move onto the edge of the map.

[cunnismeta]

@thomashiatt said in Bannable offmapping:

just make off map reclaim move onto the edge of the map.

easily the best suggestion.

[Mach]

@cunnismeta said in Bannable offmapping:

@thomashiatt said in Bannable offmapping:

just make off map reclaim move onto the edge of the map.

easily the best suggestion.

first

@mach said in Bannable offmapping:

I suggest plane wrecks bounce off the map boundary same as they do from shields

[maudlin27]

Before I go through specific points people have raised, I think it's important to focus on the bigger picture points:

• If it's decided that ctrl-king units to make the wrecks fall off-map should be bannable, then the current rules should be changed/rewritten to state this.
• It's a bad idea to use the underresourced mod team and ban system to try and prevent people playing a particular way, when it both isn't obvious that playing in such a way would be abusive to a typical player, and when it is possible to prevent this result via other means.

In particular, as others have also suggested, if you dont want wrecks off-mapped, that's easily fixable via the game code. You could either do it for all wrecks, or (since I suspect Jip wouldn't be a fan of the performance hit involved in applying the logic to every wreck) you could just introduce it for any wreck of at least 1k mass or higher which will limit it to mostly strats and air experimentals. You're not essentially criminalising people for doing something they dont even realise is wrong, you're not overburdening the mods with enforcing such a rule, and you're actually stopping it from even being able to happen in-game.

---

Now taking each post in turn...
@xiaomao said in Bannable offmapping:

Lmao, making 40k mass unrecoverable for enemy team on their own territory is not bannable XD

That logic would suggest ctrl-king off-map is ok if it's not in the enemy team territory, but ctrl-king an ahwassa into water is bannable if the water is in the enemy team territory

@arma473 said in Bannable offmapping:

you can still reclaim wrecks from those places with drones or factory attack move.

Drones requires UEF (1 faction out of 4), factory attack move only increases the reclaim range so it's still possible it is out of reach of it, although admitedly I expect I would struggle to find a map/scenario where it's impossible.

There is a rule against intentionally dropping wrecks off map. The rule is clear enough.
This thread is proof that if you think there's a rule that prohibits this, it is not clear enough!

Greater gameplay depth is not always a good thing. It is not good to have increased depth of gameplay where the depth is because exploits exist. If anything there's already too much depth to the gameplay in FAF
Agreed, and I'm not arguing that ctrl-king a wreck is clearly a good thing. I'm arguing that making it a bannable offence enforceable by mods is a bad thing.

@ftxcommando said in Bannable offmapping:

How is it less intuitive to not intentionally drop a 30k mass wreck off the map than to hide a strat off the map as it sneaks on the enemy?

Making a unit untargetable is more obviously likely to be breaching a rule than denying your opponent reclaim (something which in various other contexts is actually encouraged)

Nice meme. There is no depth, if it is gonna die you ctrl+k it off map so that half the penalty of losing the air unit doesn't happen.

Maybe for you, I'm very sceptical that the average FAF player could predict with 100% accuracy whether an air unit will die and react quick enough to ctrl-k to make the wreck go off-map vs trying for a second bomb.

How is it not raising the skill ceiling to have to be aware a strat could be hiding off map or abusing the auto-loss targeting to get better air fights?

I didn't say it isnt. However I see making units essentially invulnerable as a bad idea, and it's more obvious that if you find a way of doing this you're more likely to be falling foul of a rule that will prohibit it.

-Your opponent is more easily able to stop you doing this than with offmapping.

No he can't. You realize you potentially need double the mass investment to one shot something as to to 2 shot it? And that not giving enemy the reclaim makes basically all air aggression pay off twice as quickly?

So your opponent can stop it more easily than offmapping...

It’s also not currently highlighted specifically as an exploit or breach of rules.

Wrong. By the definition of the game code, reclaim wrecks are still units.

Wrong. Requiring a user to consider wrecks to be units and to infer from this that a rule saying dont hide units via offmapping means dont ctrl-k a unit so its wreck lands offmap is not specifically highlighting.

As mentioned above, this thread is proof that if this rule was meant to stop ctrl-king units offmap, then it is not clear and should be rewritten.

Functionally everything you wrote here also applies to building under transport drops btw.

Wrong. Causing opponents units to self destruct by deliberately doing this is in a similar category to making your own units invulnerable. Some of the points might apply, but the biggest point doesnt.

[FtXCommando]

Your reclaim flying off the map is making your reclaim functionally invulnerable to the enemy. I cannot believe you are making these points and thinking they don’t directly apply vice versa.

Just admit there is no rational reason beyond the fact it increases the quantity of reports and it not being worth increasing the backlog.

[Jip]

I've looked into it.

Six years ago we introduced the logic to immediately destroy an air unit as it crashes outside the map:

• https://github.com/FAForever/fa/commit/73fd211c74f0934b6fd71296688a80de8d843768

This was to fix a bug related to intel, where the OnDestroy of a plane was not properly called in the situation where the plane crashes outside of the map where there should be 'water'. The plane sinks indefinitely as there is no ocean floor. Which I suspect causes #848 where you can get infinite intel.

I can reproduce this by reverting the commit, add logging and then make a plane crash outside of the map.

The fix is not as simple as just warping the wreck back into the playable area. Take as an example a campaign map: the playable area can be extended / shrinked and therefore warping the wreck is 'incorrect' and will break immersion.

I'll have to think it over.

[Mach]

@maudlin27 said in Bannable offmapping:

Drones requires UEF (1 faction out of 4), factory attack move only increases the reclaim range so it's still possible it is out of reach of it, although admitedly I expect I would struggle to find a map/scenario where it's impossible.

you can always get a teleport upgrade to reclaim, yes it costs a lot, but wreck can be worth even more, and you keep the teleporter after reclaiming the wreck anyways

I doubt it is possible to have a wreck fall in location that even teleporter can't reach

[maudlin27]

@jip If there's a concern it'd break immersion on campaign maps to keep wrecks inside the playable area then one option could be to check at the start of the game if it's a PvE game or alternatively if it's a campagin map (I'm assuming the former will be easier than the latter unless there's already a field indicating if it's a campaign) so wrecks are only moved if its PVP, coupled with only doing this for high mass value units.

[Jip]

I was thinking of a similar flag, I'll think about it and see if I can add it to the patch of the 28th.

[A Former User]

Can't aircraft just decelerate when approaching map edges?

[Mach]

also imo it should effect all wrecks, not just x mass value ones, makes no sense to have more arbitrary mechanics that only effect certain things under certain conditions

[maudlin27]

@mach I agree affecting all wrecks would be better, but if it would have a performance impact (even if very small) then it becomes a cost:benefit scenario.

Thinking about it more I expect it probably wouldn’t have a notable impact as you’d only need up to 4 number checks per wreck (ie checking if x and z values are inside the playable area) to determine if it’s off-map, compared with checking the wreck mass value, and anything after that wouldnt matter due to how rare it is for wrecks to be off-map.

However Jip would be far better placed than me to conclude on if performance would be a concern

[Cyborg16]

Just ban maps where you build bases right at the map-edge. Simple.

(Yes, quite a lot of popular maps need fixing! Arguably, it's already broken having a completely arbitrary wall limiting base expansion and air fights.)

[TheWeakie]

You just suggested to ban 95% of all maps

[Katharsas]

@melanol said in Bannable offmapping:

Can't aircraft just decelerate when approaching map edges?

Specifically, if map edges had a zone that dampens any movement towards the edge (ONLY towards the edge, so only changing one of the speed vector's components), that should not feel too immersion breaking.

Ideally, maps would be designed with that zone in mind, but if the zone is not too big it should not affect existing maps too much.