Bannable offmapping

thecore

suggest plane wrecks bounce off the map boundary

The same could be done with planes, that way there is no off mapping.

FtXCommando

Are you telling me I can't CTRL+K my units for them to die off map?

"Banned exploits:

Offmapping in order to hide units in any way."

Nothing about dying off map.

Far as I know it is. You're intentionally hiding the unit aka the wreck so the enemy can't get to it. Obviously all this stuff plays at the margin and you don't ban dudes because their attack move washer or strat makes a turn that goes off map. But if a dude bombs, then flys to the edge, then ctrl+k's, then yeah he should be banned.

A Former User

@ftxcommando said in Bannable offmapping:

But if a dude bombs, then flys to the edge, then ctrl+k's, then yeah he should be banned.

This is your personal opinion. Nothing like that in the rules.

FtXCommando

You just quoted the rules saying it lol

cunnismeta

@melanol set waypoint at edge of map so planes are flying at the edge of the map, perpendicular to the edge of the map.
set second waypoint at corner of map.
set third waypoint at next corner of the map
set final waypoint behind enemy base
shift+G all targets of opportunity

FAF seems to have offmapping prevention implemented to some degree. Trying this might just get your units stuck offmap. And you banned.

though uh, what's a bit of unrated offmapping between friends lmfao.
all's fair in love and war

A Former User

@ftxcommando Yes, I can read. Dead units are not units. Anyway, I will wait for someone with more authority to reply.

Conny_Action

but letting your air units die offmap makes the unreclaimable, which is nasty for t4 air or gunships or bomber. i mean there is some room of tolerance i think, you wont get reported for offmapping a t3 scout once. although its pretty hard to not offmap when the enemy got his base in the corner. but its obvious 2 or 3 times when you do this intentionally, so you are supposed to watch out a little your way points or micro your units so your strats wont bypass the asf cloud offmap.
but thats where i would be interested too, bcs you can either say offmapping strats should be accepted till some degree when the enmy builds his base directly in the corner (or hides his para or whatever) or any offmapping is stricly banned so you can make enemy bomber runs very hard to manage by building your base in the corner intentionally and shutting down 2 sides from whre enemy bombs could come. how is this dealt by the pros or in tournaments? chivalry and fairplay?
the idea of implementing some kind of air space which is bigger than the map is old and not feasible isnt it? radar and and air micro should work there too.

i would cosider dead units as units somehow, bcs their entity dont disappear like in other rts games and reclaiming their wrecks can be game changing.

Jip

Dead units are units. Intentionally crashing your air units outside of the map with the goal to deny the reclaim is a good example of what 'offmapping' is too, and is against the rules.

As dynamics points out - some maps have spawns or extractors that are so close to the edge that you can't do much about it. That is bad map design, and that is 'okay' - as long as you don't do it intentionally (use ctrl + k to kill the bomber earlier, for example).

maudlin27

@melanol @FtXCommando @Mach
Currently the view of the mod team is that Ctrl-King a unit so that the wreck falls off-map (e.g. to deny your opponent the reclaim) is not considered a breach of the FAF rules, that is it's not considered to be using an exploit.

However, deliberately abusing off-mapping for (alive) air units is considered a bannable exploit.

FtXCommando

Mod team back at it again with insane interpretations of gameplay

Anyone on mod team want to explain the positive aspect of allowing that type of play?

maudlin27

My own (personal) view:
-bannable offences should be reasonably clear to be something wrong-most people wont be going through the various items in a forum post to check they dont do them. Banning something that many users wouldnt intuitively think to be wrong leads to frustration for those players (potentially decreasing playerbase) and increased work for the mod team dealing with such reports. There needs to be a strong case for going against this rule
-increased depth/gameplay-do you risk trying another bomb and have your enemy get the reclaim? Do you risk trying to get the wreck outside the map and end up falling just short?
-you can already do similar things by getting the wreck in an impathable cliff (excl uef) or in water (less wreck value, although Ive not tested recently to confirm)
-Your opponent is more easily able to stop you doing this than with offmapping. Offmapping allows bombers to sneak past your opponents defences. Ctrl-king doesnt (eg if you have loads of AA you could kill them before they can reach the edge of the map to ctrl-k)

It’s also not currently highlighted specifically as an exploit or breach of rules.

TheVVheelboy

Lmao, making 40k mass unrecoverable for enemy team on their own territory is not bannable XD

arma473

@maudlin27 There isn't a rule against intentionally (or accidentally) dropping wrecks on un-pathable terrain or in the water.

And, you can still reclaim wrecks from those places with drones or factory attack move.

There is a rule against intentionally dropping wrecks off map. The rule is clear enough.

Greater gameplay depth is not always a good thing. It is not good to have increased depth of gameplay where the depth is because exploits exist. If anything there's already too much depth to the gameplay in FAF, so we'd benefit by removing things like v***rancy bonuses.

cunnismeta

Clearly there should be a rule forbidding intentionally offmapping reclaim

FtXCommando

@maudlin27 said in Bannable offmapping:

My own (personal) view:
-bannable offences should be reasonably clear to be something wrong-most people wont be going through the various items in a forum post to check they dont do them. Banning something that many users wouldnt intuitively think to be wrong leads to frustration for those players (potentially decreasing playerbase) and increased work for the mod team dealing with such reports. There needs to be a strong case for going against this rule

How is it less intuitive to not intentionally drop a 30k mass wreck off the map than to hide a strat off the map as it sneaks on the enemy?

-increased depth/gameplay-do you risk trying another bomb and have your enemy get the reclaim? Do you risk trying to get the wreck outside the map and end up falling just short?

Nice meme. There is no depth, if it is gonna die you ctrl+k it off map so that half the penalty of losing the air unit doesn't happen.

How is it not raising the skill ceiling to have to be aware a strat could be hiding off map or abusing the auto-loss targeting to get better air fights?

-you can already do similar things by getting the wreck in an impathable cliff (excl uef) or in water (less wreck value, although Ive not tested recently to confirm)

Drop on anything super far, fac attack move grabs anything else. I never see a wreck I can't grab, even with drones excluded.

-Your opponent is more easily able to stop you doing this than with offmapping. Offmapping allows bombers to sneak past your opponents defences. Ctrl-king doesnt (eg if you have loads of AA you could kill them before they can reach the edge of the map to ctrl-k)

No he can't. You realize you potentially need double the mass investment to one shot something as to to 2 shot it? And that not giving enemy the reclaim makes basically all air aggression pay off twice as quickly?

It’s also not currently highlighted specifically as an exploit or breach of rules.

Wrong. By the definition of the game code, reclaim wrecks are still units.

Functionally everything you wrote here also applies to building under transport drops btw.

A Former User

If dead units are units, state this in the exploit list, because as of right now, if this was in court, it would be like fining a dead person for parking off cliff.

A Former User

And no, a regular player does not know that the code considers wrecks to be units. Does it, though?

ThomasHiatt

I don't think causing wrecks to go off map has ever actually been considered against the rules, but it probably should be. Really the game team should just make off map reclaim move onto the edge of the map.

cunnismeta

@thomashiatt said in Bannable offmapping:

just make off map reclaim move onto the edge of the map.

easily the best suggestion.

Mach

@cunnismeta said in Bannable offmapping:

@thomashiatt said in Bannable offmapping:

just make off map reclaim move onto the edge of the map.

easily the best suggestion.

first

@mach said in Bannable offmapping:

I suggest plane wrecks bounce off the map boundary same as they do from shields