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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Isn't there something about off screening too?
-
@sylph_ said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
(exception - players that quit immediately on game start.)
That's blocking the game so totally bannable
-
Are we actually banning people permanently?
-
Given that you fixed the quote-unquote "glitch" by adding code in Lua, disabling unit intel in the same way shields are disabled when a unit is attached to a transport, I'll ask in return for you to explain how the engine bug of Stinger's with cargo being selectable in transports is related to the issue, instead of a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
Stinger's selectable in carriers:
- in engine
- not fixable
Deceiver's giving stealth to carriers:
- in lua
- "fixable" (without any hacks, at that!)
-
@spikeynoob said
Problem solved.
This is true if the problem is deceivers granting stealth to carriers. If the problem is emergent behavior being unilaterally removed from the game then it's quite severely the opposite.
-
@slicknixon said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
Given that you fixed the quote-unquote "glitch" by adding code in Lua, disabling unit intel in the same way shields are disabled when a unit is attached to a transport, I'll ask in return for you to explain how the engine bug of Stinger's with cargo being selectable in transports is related to the issue, instead of a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
Stinger's selectable in carriers:
- in engine
- not fixable
Deceiver's giving stealth to carriers:
- in lua
- "fixable" (without any hacks, at that!)
@slicknixon said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
@spikeynoob said
Problem solved.
This is true if the problem is deceivers granting stealth to carriers. If the problem is emergent behavior being unilaterally removed from the game then it's quite severely the opposite.
I'll be honest that I'm no longer interested in debating this. The use of 'unilaterally' is inappropriate. It is considered a glitch by the game team and it is undesired by the balance team. If both of those teams agree then it is far from 'unilaterally'. Other people have been acting in a patronizing or just plain insulting manner too. It is not constructive and it doesn't make me want to discuss it further.
But here we go.
The engine is clearly unable to properly process transports-within-transports or transports-within-cargo. It shows by the Stinger being the only unit that can act as a transport and then bugging out when it does so. It bugs out by acting like this:
The engine disables all weapon ranges of units that are inside a carrier. All weapons of those units are disabled too. Intel is not disabled by the engine because unlike the average unit-related system, intel is entirely managed in Lua. You can read up about it here
Given that the unit is unable to interact with the simulation. And given that the unit is unable to be damaged. And given that you can not select the unit (even though when the game thinks you can, but can't) it seems a natural conclusion that the unit does not exist at that moment. Let alone the cargo of the unit. Therefore to me it is a bug that even though nothing of the unit interacts with the simulation the intel (that is entirely managed in Lua) still works somehow and the unit still consumes maintenance.
On top of that, balance-wise it was undesired.
So we removed it through Lua.
Similarly there is more 'emergent behavior' or 'unintended consequences' where the cargo of the transport that itself is the cargo of a carrier would become invincible. It was as easy as this: put a hover unit in the cargo of the Stinger. Let the Stinger enter the Atlantis. Let the Atlantis die. The hover unit is now invisible and invincible, but it can reclaim or fire its weapons. Surely we can agree that this is a bug that originates from the same origin: the game being unable to properly process transports-in-transports or transports-in-cargo.
We removed that too through Lua
.With that said, this entire discussion is a bit cringe to me and this is my last post on the topic. I can't understand how you all want to spent time debating a 'feature' of the game that you practically never use. Meanwhile, as one example, we're re-implementing how spread attack / distribute orders works which is going to change the experience of every game you play and nobody (of this topic) appears to be interested in spending time on understanding that. Take the time to explain that to me please
A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned
-
If a decision has been reached by the game and balance teams then there was no discussion to be had in the first place. My concern was that the decision had been made solely on your interpretation as game lead.
I haven't had the time to look at the new spread attack implementation. Having gone through the old one in some detail I felt there was room for improvement and am glad it has arrived. My only regret is I never got around to exploring whatever trapdoors the old implementation left in the Sim<->UI barrier before they were latched forever. Looking forward to finding out if there are any new ones.
-
How is this a balance issue when absolutely nobody has been doing that and it's only been brought up as a curiosity?
-
I am sad to see this interaction go. It was a very niche thing that required the interaction of three factions' tech, with arguably limited usefulness. The group I regularly play with has been aware of this interaction for the better part of a year, but I can count on one hand the number of times we've actually found a reason and the time/spare apm to use this tactic.
I can't understand how you all want to spent time debating a 'feature' of the game that you practically never use
I am concerned about this change because it fits in a larger pattern of changes that I feel are not good long-term for the health of the game.
One of the most enjoyable things about the original Supcom:FA was the way that the different factions have their own peculiarities, and the way that those interact with eachother. I've mentioned in several previous discussion that I am really not stoked seeing the balance team homogenize the factions and removing all of these gimmicks. Not all features of the game have to be used regularly to remain in game, as demonstrated by the continued existence of firebeetles.
... Should we really keep strange edge cases...
Yes.
-
What other gimmicks have been removed?
-
I believe
Ctrl k sat to destroy nuke
Asf hitting nukes to detonate
Asf hitting strat bombs
T1 aa hitting nukes
Off screening is bannableThere's a few more ones that could be considered fun. The asf ones and the t1 aa one above are really cool interactions but can ruin gameplay
At jip, I really appreciate the explanation, the problem here is that new game feature is discovered and then people behind the curtain take it away. If the people behind the curtain throw their weight around too much there won't be anyone in the audience.
I really like the new spread commands, I didn't really think there was a need to talk about it.
-
Also, because it's on the table--when something is added to the base release (spread attack), if it's bad there's a pretty good chance it won't stick around. A feature in the base game is tested constantly by the entire player base, people get experience with it, and feedback is forthcoming.
When something is removed from the game, getting it back in requires:
- Reimplementing it
- Distributing it
- Getting enough people to play it to actually form an opinion
- Marshalling enough support from #3 to get it re-added to the release
After the axe falls here, someone interested in getting "deceivers cloak carriers" back in the game will need to do #1, #2, and #3 all by their lonesome (I can see the very respectful forum posts now, something along the lines of "it was taken out for a reason, idiot") while a feature newly added to the game--like the new spread attack--gets that administrative overhead for free.
Finally, removing something because "it's practically never used" is a bad metric. Something that isn't used remains in the solution space, with the possibility to find use when A. a future adjacent change is made or B. some new interaction or pattern is discovered to be effective. I'll speak for myself and say that I like it when unusual stuff happens. Locking doors for no reason other than people aren't using them moves the game away from that.
