Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?
-
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
-
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.
As stated before, there are other units that have the same abilities and can be found far earlier in the tech tree.
This is also does not include the other (easier) methods of obtaining the same exact scenario given the same units as stated in an earlier post.
~ Stryker
-
@thewheelie said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
Why are deceivers active in transports but my good friend the mobile shield not? Gg balance team
An actual comparison to this scenario would be:
"Mobile shields in transports are fine, however it is way too strong to have a mobile shield underwater that you can't hit so any usage of that specific unit in an atlantis is an exploit but everything else is ok"
Like uhhhhh what about the other dozen ways it is way stronger bro? Or why not just prohibit putting stingers in the carrier?
-
@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
if I'm not mistaken it is this category:
Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion.
Not referring to stealth working on transports, that is fine. But a stealth field working from inside the Atlantis or CZAR is not. You can do other glitches with the described approach and it is definitely not intended. I just didn't have the time to fix them yet
Has anyone ever been banned for this 'exploit' or even reported? While not common I have seen it many casts over the years, and at most it was seen as a bit tryhard
This is also the downside of having such a general category, as one man's bug is another man's feature.
@tagada said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
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.
Should CZAR have omni ? Or Atlantis or any carrier for that matter? Load or build any spy plane and it suddenly has.
-
I would like to know how specifically this is a glitch or a bug?
-
@mazornoob said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
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.
The Czar and Atlantis having stealth doesn't make sense. Their factions are not known for stealth. Atlantis having jamming makes more sense. If anything I think those two units should have flak along side their SAMs.
-
https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5329 Problem solved.
-
The Czar and Atlantis having stealth doesn't make sense. Their factions are not known for stealth. Atlantis having jamming makes more sense. If anything I think those two units should have flak along side their SAMs.
All factions have Stealth fields. Should those be removed from all factions?
If anything Aeon is more so the "vison" faction, should the SoothSayer be removed from Cybran?
UEF is known for their HP. Shouldn't the Brick lose like 400 HP?
Aeon is known to have specialized units and not multirole. Should their T3 gunship be removed?At this point, most faction themes have flown out the window.
As they don't make sense or drastically affect balance if they do.You can linger here and there on specialized units but that's about it.
~ Stryker
-
https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5329 Problem solved.
So the community has no say in this, then?
It appears to me that so far it seems that mostly everyone here is against it from being removed.90% of the players here, have known for it to be a feature.
Why is suddenly becoming a 'bug' now?I understand this may not be the best argument, but,
If this was possible to do in the base game, and in FA;
I'd say it was a feature, otherwise, that wouldn't have been possible to do, to begin with.Feature in SC & FA but instead a bug on FAF?
That doesn't make sense. Why?
~ Stryker
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
@comradestryker said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
So the community has no say in this, then?
The balance and the game team are also part of that same community.
@comradestryker said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
Feature in SC & FA but instead a bug on FAF?
That doesn't make sense. Why?@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
@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
Still waiting for people to state that this is a feature, and not a clear engine bug caused by an edge case
A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned
-
-
@jip said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
Still waiting for people to state that this is a feature, and not a clear engine bug caused by an edge case
It's called "emergent behaviour". Just because developers did not explicitly anticipate it being a thing does not mean it's a bug. There's more of it in the game: moving units individually sometimes being better than together in formation, manually firing T2 PD with AoE for more range, diverting enemy AA with a gunship in order to mercy snipe, killing natural reclaim with bombers, CZAR beam damaging ASFs. Some of this was never considered an issue, some was even made easier (split move).
Plus, a problem is something that causes trouble, right? Nobody's been stealthing their CZARs and Atlantis, so I don't see why this requires a solution. If anything I'd go the other way and allow limited numbers of transports with cargo to load onto Atlantis and CZAR.
-
I'm referring to being able to select the Stinger while it is docked in the carrier.
-
@comradestryker said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5329 Problem solved.
So the community has no say in this, then?
It appears to me that so far it seems that mostly everyone here is against it from being removed.90% of the players here, have known for it to be a feature.
Why is suddenly becoming a 'bug' now?I understand this may not be the best argument, but,
If this was possible to do in the base game, and in FA;
I'd say it was a feature, otherwise, that wouldn't have been possible to do, to begin with.Feature in SC & FA but instead a bug on FAF?
That doesn't make sense. Why?Do you really think this is balanced? Should we really keep strange edge cases that give already powerful units more power that only a few would think to try? This of all things to get up in arms over, i would not expect this to be it.
-
How about we watch it being OP in games before we smash it?
