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

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

Though my posts here are more focused on that it would be hilariously dumb to get warned or banned for something this inconsequential. Don't mind it being fixed, but if it was in the game it really should be no problem to use.

We won't ban anyone over it. As far as the moderation team is concerned it is perfectly ok. Its just getting removed because it is unbalanced/a glitch.

If it was op, it would be meta, yet it's also said nobody does it.

Sounds like there's glitches with the stinger, but the deceiver doesn't sound like the glitch itself.

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

If it was op, it would be meta, yet it's also said nobody does it.

Sounds like there's glitches with the stinger, but the deceiver doesn't sound like the glitch itself.

This feels like the whole blinking lights situation all over again. "Its not meta so not op" is not a valid argument. Why should a niche situation that few people know about (that is not intuitive) allow units that are balanced independently to gain abilities that are special to other units.

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

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.

@Jip

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.

@SpikeyNoob

... Should we really keep strange edge cases...

Yes.

Is this really something that makes you concerned about the long term health of the game? This weird unknown interaction that only someone as committed to uef knowledge as stryker could notice. Its not like we are removing the ability to use deceivers in transports or even stingers. You could still make a gunship snipe that depends on ur stealthed t2 gunship mass. But we just dont think it makes sense for important high HP experimental to be able to generate stealth that cannot be sniped. Maybe you could put a continental with a deceiver next to ur czar. I don't understand how this can be seen as some sort of faction diversity killer.

I believe the blinking lights was actually talked about before changed, it irc tanked performance so there was actually a reason.

We only have one person using the stealthed Atlantis so far

If we are removing bugs, factory attack move has to go.

It's still intuitive. Deceiver works in transports, as opposed to shields -> transport is docked -> deceiver still works. At least for Atlantis, CZAR is a bit too big for the stealth field hiding it to be believable.

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

Is this really something that makes you concerned about the long term health of the game? This weird unknown interaction that only someone as committed to uef knowledge as stryker could notice. Its not like we are removing the ability to use deceivers in transports or even stingers. You could still make a gunship snipe that depends on ur stealthed t2 gunship mass. But we just dont think it makes sense for important high HP experimental to be able to generate stealth that cannot be sniped. Maybe you could put a continental with a deceiver next to ur czar. I don't understand how this can be seen as some sort of faction diversity killer.

Again, for the people in the back:

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.

The decission to fix this 'bug' isn't made in a vacuum.

Why should a niche situation that few people know about (that is not intuitive) allow units that are balanced independently to gain abilities that are special to other units.

I reject that it's not intuitive, and to answer the question: because knowledge of the game and the complex interactions that are possible should be rewarded.

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

because knowledge of the game and the complex interactions that are possible should be rewarded.

Why does everybody complain about build orders then? Or even about map familiarity, quoting the map generator as "leveling the playing field"?
It seems that in fact people dislike knowledge rewards because they don't like losing due to a knowledge disadvantage.

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

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

because knowledge of the game and the complex interactions that are possible should be rewarded.

Why does everybody complain about build orders then? Or even about map familiarity, quoting the map generator as "leveling the playing field"?

Different people than me.

Though I also believe that the random gen maps are a great addition to the game because I think it is more fun and challenging to adjust openings to different circumstances, and being forced to adapt to different playstyles/possibilities. Knowing the game well and knowing how to use units in unconventional ways does not detract from this, however. If anything, it synergises with it.

It seems that in fact people dislike knowledge rewards because they don't like losing due to a knowledge disadvantage.

This seems a really silly thing to complain about to me. We're playing a complex game that's already part of a genre of games that is considered more complex than other games. To then complain that understanding the game leads to an advantage is fairly absurd.

"People that have played the game more and understand it better are better than me". I mean, yes? Hello? How is this controversial?

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

"People that have played the game more and understand it better are better than me". I mean, yes? Hello? How is this controversial?

Idk, ask them not me. I am just saying that a lot of people hold this opinion. And you disagreeing with that doesn't make this go away. So just stating " knowledge should be rewarded" without acknowledging that a lot of people dislike this, seems a bit reductive.

@blackyps

I am just saying that a lot of people hold this opinion.

Who holds this opinion?

there is a lot of talk about bo in this thread https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5729/how-come-you-don-t-play-ladder

And what inspired you to make the leap from "people think this segment of the game [build orders] requires too much specific knowledge" to the topic we're discussing here?

By abstracting a little. As I explained people seem to not like losing due to game knowledge disadvantage

I dislike the importance of map specific build orders. I also like it being possible to give an atlantis stealth by loading a deceiver into it. The two are very different points.

It also seems strange to me that a hidden non-intuitive glitch where giving an attack-move rally point from a factory artificially increases an engineer’s reclaim range is seen as sacrosanct (despite having a notable impact on games and being frequently used by players aware of its existence) but a rarely seen unit interaction that is to some extent consistent with other interactions involving that unit (deceiver) must be removed.

That said I can understand removing if it’s a side effect of removing the potential for more serious bugs/interactions that exist from permitting this, and/or if its the only solution to weird looking graphics/unit selections.

For the avoidance of doubt even thiugh Im disappointed it’ll be removed I don’t see it as a big deal (and other changes made in this patch that I’ve commented on less such as spread commands and mobile factories I see as more important)

@blackyps

It's a false equivalence, on top of the false equivalence of confusing the people in that thread with the people in this one. You need to learn (and practice) build orders for each map, but you only need to learn the intricacies of deceiver interactions once, with no practice required.

Where are we going with this, talking about other people complaining about something else? What do you believe? Should knowledge of the game translate to an advantage while playing it?

Supcom has always been about game/unit knowledge and not about micro, this is not StarCraft

Waiting for factory attack move to be patched out since it's a bug/glitch

Need some consistency here

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

Where are we going with this, talking about other people complaining about something else? What do you believe? Should knowledge of the game translate to an advantage while playing it?

I believe that the removal or keeping of this feature is pretty irrelevant. Jip noticed it, the balance team gave its approval for removing it, so it got removed. The reasoning for the change sounds pretty convincing to me as well.
This whole discussion will lead to nothing as a decision has already been made and there are no substantial counterarguments to be made other than personal opinion. Which is fine, in the end things like "how much micro should be in the game" always boils down to personal opinion, as there is no objectively correct answer.
I've been taking part in this discussion because it was entertaining to a degree, but it has become more and more redundant

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

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

Where are we going with this, talking about other people complaining about something else? What do you believe? Should knowledge of the game translate to an advantage while playing it?

I believe that the removal or keeping of this feature is pretty irrelevant. Jip noticed it, the balance team gave its approval for removing it, so it got removed. The reasoning for the change sounds pretty convincing to me as well.
This whole discussion will lead to nothing as a decision has already been made and there are no substantial counterarguments to be made other than personal opinion. Which is fine, in the end things like "how much micro should be in the game" always boils down to personal opinion, as there is no objectively correct answer.
I've been taking part in this discussion because it was entertaining to a degree, but it has become more and more redundant

Removal of this feature goes against supcom, the game where you can do anything.

Justification for removal is also inconsistent.

Priority of removal was extremely high for something nobody even does.

I'm telling you, these are not good signs. Will faf be ok, yeah.

@blackyps

no substantial counterargu..

An aircraft with a stealth field also stealths the carrier.

mod that adds a stealth field to UEF spyplane