Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?

snoog

If putting deceivers into transports is allowed, then I don't see why putting those transports into an Atlantis/Czar shouldn't also be allowed.

arma473

It should not be allowed. If it was that easy to implement stealth on big units, every big unit in the game would have stealth.

TheVVheelboy

What next? Saying I can't steal enemy engie and make his game ender cuz it comes from different faction?
It's such a niche scenario, faction and unit composition that I will genuinely congratulate anyone who does it in real game.

Zeldafanboy

Stuff like this is why Supcom is so unique, finally a decent use for the Stinger transport clamp

Sprouto

Intel/counter-intel units, just like shields, should be offline while on transports.

Jip

@maudlin27 said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:

A list of exploits that can get you banned is available here:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/203/list-of-banned-exploits-updated-22-03-2022?lang=en-US

From a quick skim through I can't see anything about giving an Atlantis or Czar stealth via a deceiver, so I don't think this would get you banned.

I'd also be against something like this being banned. You can give transports stealth by loading a deceiver onto them, and it seems like a fun interaction that adds a bit of depth without being overpowered.

if I'm not mistaken it is this category:

Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion.

Not referring to stealth working on transports, that is fine. But a stealth field working from inside the Atlantis or CZAR is not. You can do other glitches with the described approach and it is definitely not intended. I just didn't have the time to fix them yet

A Former User

@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:

Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion.

It is not breaking the game, it's just your interpretation. There are multiple examples in other RTS games where different factions can interact in an unexpected manner: Medics in SC1 heal all ground Zerg units, devourers + corsair or valkyries annihilate air; similar in SC2 with healing Zerg units; billion different combos in WC3. Nowhere a combo is considered game-breaking, unless specified by administration, and usually devs programmatically forbid it.

It is not game-breaking in SupCom because: in 1v1 it is hard to steal enemy engies, you have to invest into T2 Cybran land, spend APM on manually loading deceivers into stingers, and then them into atlantis/czar; in 2+ player games, it's just a combo, players combine things in SupCom, like: everyone getting Sera shields, their own eyes of Rhianne, putting flares into Sera transports, navi using UEF shield boats, etc.

Unless the administration states it is not allowed, it is allowed. And if they do, their decision would get some players banned undeservingly for their creativity or if they heard it was possible. If the administration decides it is not allowed, they should write it into code instead.

Jip

@melanol said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:

It is not breaking the game, it's just your interpretation.

Interpretation as game lead

And I agree with you, if it isn't intended then it should be fixed in the code when that is possible. Which I didn't have the time to do yet, but perhaps I'll push it up the agenda.

clyf

That interpretation should have some discussion attached to it instead of being implemented unilaterally. Melanol makes good points.

MazorNoob

I think that common sense wise it makes sense for Atlantis to be stealthed, but isn't the Czar larger than deceiver's stealth field? I feel like Czar should be an exception because of that.

veteranashe

I don't think it breaks the game rules and I'd be sad if you patched it out.

Jip

@slicknixon said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:

That interpretation should have some discussion attached to it instead of being implemented unilaterally. Melanol makes good points.

Being able to give constant stealth a CZAR because of this glitch can hardly be considered intended, but if you want to discuss then go ahead.

A Former User

@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:

can hardly be considered intended

I have a secret for you: There are many things in games developers did not intent. Doesn't make all of them illegal. It's called creativity on the players' side.

Jip

Great start of the 'discussion' with that attitude. I'd encourage you to dive into the technical details of how the glitch works before making snarky comments

Conny_Action

also i love that this is possible in the game mechanic and im for keeping it like this way, not working mobile shields on transports could be a foundation to argue that mobile stealth on sitngers should not be active. but then it shouldnt be active on regular transports as well.

BlackYps

@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:

I'd encourage you to dive into the technical details of how the glitch works before making snarky comments

Not defending the attitude of Melanol, but the technical details are irrelevant to the players. We should discuss if we want that mechanic in the game and then decide based on that. I would guess that the technical details of factory attack move are not pretty as well, but we as a community decided to keep that.

Tagada

Anything that's inside another unit and can't be interacted with eg. inside a carrier shouldn't be able to give you or the carrying unit any advantage be it intel or counter-intel measures.

FtXCommando

Only reason this should be justified as an "exploit" is because transports cant go inside either a czar nor an atlantis. Might as well as specifically ban stingers carrying units from entering a carrier if you view this as a problem.

Like what is the user processing there? I'm allowed to use a deceiver in my stinger at all times except when I enter these carriers then I have entered the arbitrary border of exploit abuse and need to manually select my deceivers to turn them off? Great. Only reason this isn't a common occurrence is because it's so tangential to being relevant and requires either 2 or 3 factions to pull off.

maudlin27

In terms of the current position/rules, to fall within the 'breaking the game' rule I think it would need to be clearer cut/more damaging than the deceiver effect. Discussing with other mods we're agreed that doing this with a deceiver isn't a reportable offence as the rules currently stand (i.e. you won't currently get banned for doing this).

Of course that's a separate point to the more recent discussions about whether the interaction should be changed/fixed to prevent it being possible in the first place.

ComradeStryker

Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion.

I'd argue that these are arbitrary rules.
Anything can basically fit in this category if you are technical enough.

Megalith reclaiming wrecks is not an intended use but it isn't listed here as a bannable exploit.

In fact, rule 3 is almost always broken by everyone.

Using unit interactions to abuse pathfinding

Can't block an ACU with units... that's a no no.

I apologize if I sound 'snarky' here, but, what comes next after this?
Do stealth fields only affect Cybran units?
Mobile shields only shield damage to units from their own faction?

What's the problem with mixing and matching a few units together?
It has never been a problem before.
These unit combos have been casted - and encouraged - dozens of times by well-known casters.
Gyle, Willow, Duelist, etc.

These are amazing plays and take time and multiple factions to pull off.

THAT is faction Synergy.
THAT is teamwork.
THAT is FAF.

Do not remove it.

~ Stryker