Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?
-
@melanol said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
It is not breaking the game, it's just your interpretation.
Interpretation as game lead
And I agree with you, if it isn't intended then it should be fixed in the code when that is possible. Which I didn't have the time to do yet, but perhaps I'll push it up the agenda.
-
That interpretation should have some discussion attached to it instead of being implemented unilaterally. Melanol makes good points.
-
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.
-
I don't think it breaks the game rules and I'd be sad if you patched it out.
-
@slicknixon said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
That interpretation should have some discussion attached to it instead of being implemented unilaterally. Melanol makes good points.
Being able to give constant stealth a CZAR because of this glitch can hardly be considered intended, but if you want to discuss then go ahead.
-
@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
can hardly be considered intended
I have a secret for you: There are many things in games developers did not intent. Doesn't make all of them illegal. It's called creativity on the players' side.
-
Great start of the 'discussion' with that attitude. I'd encourage you to dive into the technical details of how the glitch works before making snarky comments
-
also i love that this is possible in the game mechanic and im for keeping it like this way, not working mobile shields on transports could be a foundation to argue that mobile stealth on sitngers should not be active. but then it shouldnt be active on regular transports as well.
-
@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
I'd encourage you to dive into the technical details of how the glitch works before making snarky comments
Not defending the attitude of Melanol, but the technical details are irrelevant to the players. We should discuss if we want that mechanic in the game and then decide based on that. I would guess that the technical details of factory attack move are not pretty as well, but we as a community decided to keep that.
-
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.
-
Only reason this should be justified as an "exploit" is because transports cant go inside either a czar nor an atlantis. Might as well as specifically ban stingers carrying units from entering a carrier if you view this as a problem.
Like what is the user processing there? I'm allowed to use a deceiver in my stinger at all times except when I enter these carriers then I have entered the arbitrary border of exploit abuse and need to manually select my deceivers to turn them off? Great. Only reason this isn't a common occurrence is because it's so tangential to being relevant and requires either 2 or 3 factions to pull off.
-
In terms of the current position/rules, to fall within the 'breaking the game' rule I think it would need to be clearer cut/more damaging than the deceiver effect. Discussing with other mods we're agreed that doing this with a deceiver isn't a reportable offence as the rules currently stand (i.e. you won't currently get banned for doing this).
Of course that's a separate point to the more recent discussions about whether the interaction should be changed/fixed to prevent it being possible in the first place.
-
Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion.
I'd argue that these are arbitrary rules.
Anything can basically fit in this category if you are technical enough.Megalith reclaiming wrecks is not an intended use but it isn't listed here as a bannable exploit.
In fact, rule 3 is almost always broken by everyone.
Using unit interactions to abuse pathfinding
Can't block an ACU with units... that's a no no.
I apologize if I sound 'snarky' here, but, what comes next after this?
Do stealth fields only affect Cybran units?
Mobile shields only shield damage to units from their own faction?What's the problem with mixing and matching a few units together?
It has never been a problem before.
These unit combos have been casted - and encouraged - dozens of times by well-known casters.
Gyle, Willow, Duelist, etc.These are amazing plays and take time and multiple factions to pull off.
THAT is faction Synergy.
THAT is teamwork.
THAT is FAF.Do not remove it.
~ Stryker
-
@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
-
Would allowing Czars and Atlantis to hold transports make them OP?
-
If it’s an exploit then make a specific exploit of loading stingers filled with units in other transports, that’s the exploitive part not the deceiver being used.
This interpretation is built to never be followed because it’s so rare, so unmalicious, and uses two different mechanics that are totally fine in the vast majority of use cases.
-
@ComradeStryker Slippery slope argument is a fallacy
My mistake on that, but it was mentioned to make a point.
Maybe it was a bad point, but I'd be sad to see this feature be 'removed'.The interaction being discussed is clearly unintended. No other unit that enters the Atlantis has this bug for example, except for Stingers with cargo:
There are only two land units with (counter-intel) abilities.
Sparky and Deceiver.UEF Frigates and T3 sonar have Jamming so that makes the Sparky & Jamming irrelevant.
The Cybran Mermaid and T3 sonar have stealth, so that also makes Stealth also nearly irrelevant.
The point is, there are easier ways to achieve the same goal, but only one of which is 'broken/bannable'?
Yes, I can understand the point here of it not being interactable, meaning you can't do anything about it.But again, I'd argue that there are far more devastating strategies that can be found sooner.
Cybran Strats have stealth, T2 subs, too.
And as aforementioned, T1 frigates have Jamming.We're comparing only a few interactions here in which a T4 is related...
as no other units are viable to do this 'bug' with.
However, if T1/2/3 units have these abilities already - free at times - why is it really a problem for a T4 to have them?
If anything it goes to show that players have to go out of their way to improve certain units as they have unacceptable performance. (Atlantis)
It's a feature, just like LABs being able to shoot out of a transport.
No other unit can do that.
And no, this is engine behavior. I can't fix this
Still remains to be a bug or not.
But it appears it may just be considering Tagada seemed against it.
Unfortunate.
~ Stryker
-
Why are deceivers active in transports but my good friend the mobile shield not? Gg balance team
-
I mean you're better off disabling all deceivers in transports or disabling the ability of all transportation capable of units from entering carriers than this weird random exploit rule.
If the argument is that it isn't intended by game mechanics, game mechanics showcase that transports aren't allowed in carriers so prohibit stingers from being in them.
If the argument is that deceivers are too strong in this insanely niche scenario, then prohibit them in the other 9 billion methods where they are actually way stronger.
-
In Cybran mission 4 the game tells you to put deceivers on transports