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

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

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

Has anyone ever been banned for this 'exploit' or even reported? While not common I have seen it many casts over the years, and at most it was seen as a bit tryhard

This is also the downside of having such a general category, as one man's bug is another man's feature.

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

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.

Should CZAR have omni ? Or Atlantis or any carrier for that matter? Load or build any spy plane and it suddenly has.

I would like to know how specifically this is a glitch or a bug?

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

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.

The Czar and Atlantis having stealth doesn't make sense. Their factions are not known for stealth. Atlantis having jamming makes more sense. If anything I think those two units should have flak along side their SAMs.

https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5329 Problem solved.

@eezyville

The Czar and Atlantis having stealth doesn't make sense. Their factions are not known for stealth. Atlantis having jamming makes more sense. If anything I think those two units should have flak along side their SAMs.

All factions have Stealth fields. Should those be removed from all factions?
If anything Aeon is more so the "vison" faction, should the SoothSayer be removed from Cybran?
UEF is known for their HP. Shouldn't the Brick lose like 400 HP?
Aeon is known to have specialized units and not multirole. Should their T3 gunship be removed?

At this point, most faction themes have flown out the window.
As they don't make sense or drastically affect balance if they do.

You can linger here and there on specialized units but that's about it.

~ Stryker

@spikeynoob

https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5329 Problem solved.

So the community has no say in this, then?
It appears to me that so far it seems that mostly everyone here is against it from being removed.

90% of the players here, have known for it to be a feature.
Why is suddenly becoming a 'bug' now?

I understand this may not be the best argument, but,
If this was possible to do in the base game, and in FA;
I'd say it was a feature, otherwise, that wouldn't have been possible to do, to begin with.

Feature in SC & FA but instead a bug on FAF?
That doesn't make sense. Why?

~ Stryker

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

So the community has no say in this, then?

The balance and the game team are also part of that same community.

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

Feature in SC & FA but instead a bug on FAF?
That doesn't make sense. Why?

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

@ComradeStryker Slippery slope argument is a fallacy

The interaction being discussed is clearly unintended. No other unit that enters the Atlantis has this bug for example, except for Stingers with cargo:

And no, this is engine behavior. I can't fix this

Still waiting for people to state that this is a feature, and not a clear engine bug caused by an edge case

@jip

Still waiting for people to state that this is a feature, and not a clear engine bug caused by an edge case

Okay, well, that's... that's fair.

~ Stryker

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

Still waiting for people to state that this is a feature, and not a clear engine bug caused by an edge case

It's called "emergent behaviour". Just because developers did not explicitly anticipate it being a thing does not mean it's a bug. There's more of it in the game: moving units individually sometimes being better than together in formation, manually firing T2 PD with AoE for more range, diverting enemy AA with a gunship in order to mercy snipe, killing natural reclaim with bombers, CZAR beam damaging ASFs. Some of this was never considered an issue, some was even made easier (split move).

Plus, a problem is something that causes trouble, right? Nobody's been stealthing their CZARs and Atlantis, so I don't see why this requires a solution. If anything I'd go the other way and allow limited numbers of transports with cargo to load onto Atlantis and CZAR.

I'm referring to being able to select the Stinger while it is docked in the carrier.

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

@spikeynoob

https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5329 Problem solved.

So the community has no say in this, then?
It appears to me that so far it seems that mostly everyone here is against it from being removed.

90% of the players here, have known for it to be a feature.
Why is suddenly becoming a 'bug' now?

I understand this may not be the best argument, but,
If this was possible to do in the base game, and in FA;
I'd say it was a feature, otherwise, that wouldn't have been possible to do, to begin with.

Feature in SC & FA but instead a bug on FAF?
That doesn't make sense. Why?

Do you really think this is balanced? Should we really keep strange edge cases that give already powerful units more power that only a few would think to try? This of all things to get up in arms over, i would not expect this to be it.

How about we watch it being OP in games before we smash it?

Weren't Atlantis and CZAR buffed because they were so weak? It's weird to hear them called "already powerful". Maybe we should make carriers more of a thing instead of less? CZAR's carrier ability is completely unused anyway other than very rarely for building air, if it could carry a few transports it'd make it much more interesting.

Ngl I didn't even know stingers were transports until this thread.

I consider it a bug that you can see the icons of units loaded into a stinger that are loaded into an atlantis, but it's really not major at all. An atlantis or czar receiving stealth because you put a stealth generator inside of it logically totally makes sense; i wouldn't call this a bug or a reportable offense. Put two and two together, and a deceiver icon being visible in an atlantis or czar doesn't really matter, and it giving the unit stealth makes sense, it does so for a transport too

From a balance viewpoint, it might be a bit too strong for what it costs. It essentially makes the soulripper having stealth (that drains way more e) worthless, because the czar is already easily the better air t4

I do wonder how useful a carrier full of transports full of units could be. Have an aircraft carrier pull up to a coast and launch transports, who in turn drop a landing party. It is somewhat unfortunate that there isn't some kind of armored hover transport in the game, like Total Annihilation had.

In other news, I had Kennel drones ramp off of a tall hill and help a Czar built aircraft once, I wonder if this is still possible.

So is a Atlantis full of stingers loaded with pilliars a bug as well?

There are tons of instances where there is an unintentional result with supcom and that what makes the game awesome

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

Weren't Atlantis and CZAR buffed because they were so weak? It's weird to hear them called "already powerful". Maybe we should make carriers more of a thing instead of less? CZAR's carrier ability is completely unused anyway other than very rarely for building air, if it could carry a few transports it'd make it much more interesting.

Much easier to repair 150 asf or restos in a czar than with air staging

@spikeynoob

Do you really think this is balanced?

Honestly, yes. It takes time, resources, and multiple factions to pull off and there are easier methods of achieving the same thing, as I've stated before.

Should we really keep strange edge cases that give already powerful units more power that only a few would think to try?

@comradestryker said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
If the issue is that a Czar and Atlantis can be stealthed,
then I would argue the case should be as follows:
If Stealthed aircraft are the issue; then remove Stealth from Cybran T3 aircraft.
If Stealthed subs are the issue; then remove Stealth from Cybran T2 subs.
If Stealthed T4 units are the issue; then remove Stealth from the Monkeylord and Soulripper.

That's the thing... it doesn't give that unit more power. It's just being used in synergy with another unit.
Let's say I pass the ball to a teammate and they score a goal, that is not my goal, that is just an assist.
Ignoring the bad analogy, that is what's going on here.
The Deceiver isn't doing anything different. It's not suddenly giving you +10,000 DPS.
Just like a stealth field doesn't grant, for example, a PD creep more DPS either.
They're just being used in tandem, is all.

This of all things to get up in arms over, i would not expect this to be it.

That is fair to say. It feels like it isn't something I would normally argue for, but, I have become fond of this 'bug'.
And for the longest time, I think most of us here if not all, thought it was intentional.
Even if it wasn't, it was quite the play to pull off. Some may say it was even "Tryhard".

I'd argue that it is also not difficult to counter.
A couple of scouts and spyplanes would be more than enough to counter said play.

If you spot a czar being built, then no longer see it on radar, you should be scouting anyway.
If you spot an Atlantis being built, then no longer see it on sonar, send a spy plane or two.
You can also see where the torps are being fired from and would find it easy to ground fire regardless.
You just need one spy plane and 10 torps.
As long as you lock on the torps, they will keep damaging the Atlantis even if you lose the radar signature.

That all being said... regardless of the outcome of this;
The FAF team will always have my support.
Yes, even if it goes against my own opinion.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
You guys do too much for the game, so, Thank You.
We may not understand at first why you guys may change something, but we will, eventually.

I just hope my responses weren't read as berating as they weren't meant that way.
Anywho... I think I made my point here, so, I'll leave it at that.

~ Stryker

@maudlin27 In fairness, that list of bannable exploits is really scary to a new player!

There are a few thing mentioned there that seem TOTALLY normal, and when I was starting out a few weeks back, I was terrified of getting banned for, for example:

"Making units regenerate life/shields without a mechanic i.e natural health regen or veterancy" - So I can get banned for regenerating my commander's HP using the nano repair mod, because I'm not using a mechanic to help regen?!?
(I was aware that 'mechanic' might not refer to an ingame engineer, but rather a mechanic of the game engine - but in that case NOTHING can regen hitpoints if it's not a mechanic build into the engine!). Still, this is a relatively straightforward ambiguity, unlike:

"Using unit interactions to abuse pathfinding e.g moving a unit up or down a cliff, similar to terraforming" - ignoring the VERY specific example mentioned... I can get banned for telling units to block the enemy commander's escape path? After all, they are 'unit interactions to abuse pathfinding'...

"Blocking OR causing the game to slowdown or lag on purpose" - I'm not slowing the game down or lagging it on purpose, obviously.... but I AM blocking sometimes, and this is an 'OR' statement... So what, blocking enemy units is bannable? Be it blocking MEX points, or retreat paths? The actual definition of 'or' is SO important here.

"Using any modifications to see through the fog of war" - so If I upgrade my commander with a radar modification I get banned?

"Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion" - SO ambiguous! I've seen forum topics claiming that everything from Mercies to LABs to frigates, are 'broken' in one sense or another!

"Using any script to alter information shown to the lobby/client or game" - so if I write down a note on paper, such as 'BadassXX2099 upgrades all their MEXes early" - my script is showing me more info, yes?

"Using ctrl+K to avoid taking damage on the unit wreck" - so I can't self-destruct a factory that is currently getting captured, since ultimately my ctrl+k action will change the damage the wreck received, yes? I can't ctrl+k any unit that might have hit a wreck if I didn't destroy it?!?! (FWIW - ctrl+k having a 10 or more second delay would totally be great by me!)

"Using any method to prevent opponents from building or producing without physically blocking the area with units" - So destroying their factories (ie. to prevent opponents from building or producing without physically blocking the area), destroying their MEXes, and destroying their power are ALL bannable offenses?!?

Obviously, after reading them and understanding FaF a little better, I quickly realised that this list is just really badly written, and there's a TON of interpretation necessary here... I just wanted to highlight how bad these 'bannable offenses' are.
If one were to use this list, every player I've ever met would get banned for something! (exception - players that quit immediately on game start -maybe? Since their surrender did prevent me from building or producing without physically blocking the area.)
Basically, I think this list needs re-wording. I can totally understand that there might be an impetus to not go into too much detail, lest the list reveal methods behind exploits, but if this is the case, I feel the list needs a caveat to clarify that new players aren't going to get banned for playing 'as intended' (with perhaps the most obvious bannable offense being blocking transports...)

• To clarify - I'm not trying to be pedantic - I now understand that this interpretation is not 'right' - I just think it's important to recognise that this list of 'bannable offenses' is terribly worded.