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

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

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.

There's also no substantial arguments in favour other than personal opinion, and fait accompli is not an argument. There is no issue or bug to be fixed when nobody ever does this and an immediate and final decision like this shuts off any discussion in the other direction, of making carriers more interesting. When's the last time anyone used Atlantis, cybran carrier or a CZAR as an actual carrier and not just temporary storage for produced units?

Please direct your complaints to the balance team, if you think they are making bad decisions.

An aircraft with a stealth field also stealths the carrier.

mod that adds a stealth field to UEF spyplane

From my understanding all intel (and intel maintenance costs) should be disabled when units are inside a carrier. Have you tested if the mod still works on fafdevelop?

@blackyps

Whether the patch missed some edge case or another/is itself bugged has zero bearing on the justification for implementing it in the first place (and it didn't, as far as I can see the patch linked by SpikeyNoob disables all intel in carriers).

My point was that much hay was made about intel within carriers (IWC) being a glitch that's related to transports within transports (TWT). @Black_Wriggler made a comment--"load a spy plane into a carrier and it has omni"--and I got curious if it held true for all intel, for all units in cargo, regardless of if they're attached to another transport, land, air, whatever. And it does! IWC works regardless of the presence of TWT.

Given that half of the stated reason for removing IWC was glitchiness due to the engine's inability to handle TWT, that there is in fact no relationship between the two would suggest a reassessment of that reasoning is appropriate.

Based on how the conversation has gone so far, I suspect we'll ditch the glitch justification and settle for the local minimum of "it's purely a balance issue" instead. As stated, these are not good signs.

If it's purely balence issue, it's outside of normal operation as it got updated immediately instead of the next balence patch.

Consistency is key