Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Known Cheats (and the standard disclaimer...)
| Known Cheats |
Wed, 12 February 2014 05:19  |
|
 XAPBob |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
XAPBob wroteskoormit wrote
Standard cheat disclaimer
--Chaff allowed
--Split-fleet dodge allowed
--Heal after gating allowed
--Everything else under the "Player Exploitable Bugs" section of the Known Bugs list is cheating
Just reread the list and spotted two that I don't think are handled by this disclaimer:
- ISB trumps IT gate scanning
I presume we're not banning ISB?
- Mine Damage Allocation
I'd not consider this a cheat, unlike Mine Damage Dodge. If you have a DD and a fuel ship (a not unreasonable combination) then the only choice you have is which design has a lower slot number. That affects whether you "Dodge" or "Allocate" the damage.
I'm going to propose (in the bar) that ISB>IT be removed from "player exploitable", and that Allocation be described as not a bug.
And here is that proposal - thoughts (I'll happily edit the wiki if it's considered appropriate)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: Known Cheats |
Wed, 12 February 2014 13:13  |
|
| skoormit |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Wed, 12 February 2014 11:46You can't lay and detonate a field on arrival can you - so it's abuse is a bit mitigated by that as well.
Correct. Field has to exist in year 0 for the player to check the checkbox for the field to detonate in year 1. And the detonation occurs before minelaying, so you can't add more mines to a field before it detonates, only after.
But:
1) Battle fronts between two SDs involve a lot of overlapping fields, with lots of detonations each year.
2) Detonations don't remove large fields, they just reduce them. The field keeps detonating each year unless the player unchecks the checkbox.
The lower-number player must pay attention each year to see if he inadvertently dodged a detonation of the higher-number player.
[Updated on: Wed, 12 February 2014 13:14]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 20 February 2014 13:34 |
|
|
|
XAPBob wrote on Wed, 12 February 2014 11:19XAPBob wroteskoormit wrote
Standard cheat disclaimer
--Chaff allowed
--Split-fleet dodge allowed
--Heal after gating allowed
--Everything else under the "Player Exploitable Bugs" section of the Known Bugs list is cheating
Just reread the list and spotted two that I don't think are handled by this disclaimer:
- ISB trumps IT gate scanning
I presume we're not banning ISB?
- Mine Damage Allocation
I'd not consider this a cheat, unlike Mine Damage Dodge. If you have a DD and a fuel ship (a not unreasonable combination) then the only choice you have is which design has a lower slot number. That affects whether you "Dodge" or "Allocate" the damage.
I'm going to propose (in the bar) that ISB>IT be removed from "player exploitable", and that Allocation be described as not a bug.
And here is that proposal - thoughts (I'll happily edit the wiki if it's considered appropriate)
Well, you are correct which also shows that we usually use the list rather with common sense than literally... which is fine and as it should be, I guess.
My suggestion would be to either:
a) Use to the usual list of allowed behaviours and also add whatever you (the host) deems suitable.
or
b) Changing our honoured and traditional list to adjust it to the most common usage in games by splitting:
- Player Exploitable Bugs / "Features" into 2 lists or rather chapters:
- Player Exploitable Bugs
- "Features"
- and moving the following things from Bugs to Features (listnumbers taken from the Stars!wiki list which needs to be changed then):
- 1.1 Chaff
- 1.2 Split Fleet Dodge
- 1.17 Repair after gating loophole
- 1.18.1 Mine Damage Allocation
- and additionally moving the following from Bugs to Coding Bugs:
- 1.15 ISB trumps IT gate scanning -> 2 Coding Bugs
When changing our list it would be necessary to change the Stars!wiki and the autohost forum list.
Perhaps it would be also wise to make a voting thread about it.
[Updated on: Thu, 20 February 2014 13:48] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Known Cheats |
Fri, 21 February 2014 02:01 |
|
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 03:49
Quote:[*]1.18.1 Mine Damage Allocation
An aberration however you look at it. Why should it be ignored except when ignorance (or perhaps blind luck) is a plausible defense? 
Why is it an aberration?
It's no different from chaff completely negating any advantage of missiles/torps.
Just because Jeffs acknowledged the chaff issue but didn't know about the other implementation of the mine damage dodge concept for mine damage allocation, doesn't mean that the mine damage allocation is an aberration.
If you want a real world simile, then think of the mine busters installed on front 'bumper' of tanks in WW2.
Or in space, having a big shield / ship in front of a fleet to find any small mines that could damage the main fleet, right behind it.
Mine damage allocation is perfectly fine, as long as damage done (in dp points) does not 'vanish', which is what the mine damage bug does.
[Updated on: Fri, 21 February 2014 02:02]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Known Cheats |
Fri, 21 February 2014 09:09 |
|
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 20 February 2014 23:19Big bug [...]
This discussion isn't about how big or small a bug is but how we handle it in game announcements.
If the result of this discussion is a new agreement/list which is easier to use and understand while taking into account that any host should be forced to interfere or check a game as little as possible (preferable not at all)... splendid!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Known Cheats |
Fri, 21 February 2014 11:09 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
Altruist wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 08:09This discussion isn't about how big or small a bug is but how we handle it in game announcements.
If the result of this discussion is a new agreement/list which is easier to use and understand while taking into account that any host should be forced to interfere or check a game as little as possible (preferable not at all)... splendid!
I concur. We should also keep in mind that the host specifies which bugs/features are allowed and which are not.
Some of the items are tricky to define with enough precision that an effective ban could be enforced. Ideally, the communal list provides details that game hosts can use so that the hosts don't need to define terms from scratch.
For example, if a host wanted to offer a game in which chaff is banned, he would have to define exactly what counts as chaff. The list doesn't help in this regard.
I'm not saying we should presently attempt to define "chaff" sufficiently for hosts that want to ban it. The player community is mostly in agreement that chaff is a reasonable facet of the battle engine, and therefore there is little demand for games that ban chaff.
There is less agreement about mine damage dodge/allocation, however, and therefore I think some clarification of the issue in the standard list would benefit game hosts.
[Updated on: Fri, 21 February 2014 11:12]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Known Cheats |
Tue, 25 February 2014 05:52 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
nmid wrote on Fri, 21 February 2014 08:01Why is it an aberration?
A) Because it is a bug. 
B) Because it hurts gameplay.
C) Because some players have come up with a fancy name to try and get away with abusing it. 
Quote:It's no different from chaff completely negating any advantage of missiles/torps.
It's completely different. Chaff is one of the basic pillars that allow Stars! to be a rock-paper-scissors game. Otherwise it would just be Iron->Torps=Game->Over. 
Quote:Just because Jeffs acknowledged the chaff issue
They didn't just acknowledge it, they explicitly said it was an intended feature of the battle engine. A welcome balance, unavoidable, even. 
Quote:If you want a real world simile, then think of the mine busters installed on front 'bumper' of tanks in WW2.
No, the real WW2 simile would be: gee, if I step on that mine with my left foot, I get both legs blown off, but if I step on it with my right, I just get a foot blown off, yay! 
Quote:Mine damage allocation is perfectly fine, as long as damage done (in dp points) does not 'vanish', which is what the mine damage bug does.
Potahto, tomahto. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Known Cheats |
Tue, 25 February 2014 06:55 |
|
| XAPBob |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 10:52
Quote:If you want a real world simile, then think of the mine busters installed on front 'bumper' of tanks in WW2.
No, the real WW2 simile would be: gee, if I step on that mine with my left foot, I get both legs blown off, but if I step on it with my right, I just get a foot blown off, yay!
If we all stand around the grenade we all die - if i throw myself onto it then I die (and get dismembered, but i can only die once) and the rest of my group survive...
Sacrificing some ships to save others - like chaff in battle, like chaff sweeping....
[Updated on: Tue, 25 February 2014 06:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Known Cheats |
Wed, 26 February 2014 07:46 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 21:52Quote:If you want a real world simile, then think of the mine busters installed on front 'bumper' of tanks in WW2.
No, the real WW2 simile would be: gee, if I step on that mine with my left foot, I get both legs blown off, but if I step on it with my right, I just get a foot blown off, yay!
Quote:Mine damage allocation is perfectly fine, as long as damage done (in dp points) does not 'vanish', which is what the mine damage bug does.
Potahto, tomahto.
Mine damage allocation is not an exploit. It is a (faulty) game mechanic. You can't ban a game mechanic; you can only ban tactics. If you want to fix a game mechanic, you need to actually alter the game code. 
Mine damage dodge is the tactic exploiting that game mechanic, and is banned.
What are you suggesting be done that is not already standard?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Known Cheats |
Wed, 26 February 2014 17:44 |
|
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 25 February 2014 16:22
Quote:Mine damage allocation is perfectly fine, as long as damage done (in dp points) does not 'vanish', which is what the mine damage bug does.
Potahto, tomahto.
A> M.a... you always reply to posts in this manner. You sequentially select quotes and then answer it, while ignoring the entire flow of a post.
If you agree that chaff is allowed/'legit' because Jeffs said so, but allocation isnt ... then you are not using your own independent thought and are doing a pretty good impression of the proverbial sheep.
B> Try following me here. Only because Jeffs didn't make any mention about the minefield damage ALLOCATION, that doesn't make it wrong.
You seem to be waiting for validation by the Jeffs to agree that the allocation tactic is valid.
C> Observe the common thread between the 2 concepts (chaff/allocation).... they both are tactics caused by game coding.
D> (I'm not talking about comparing chaff/dodge for now, but yea... the concept applies to dodge as well.
Don't jump on to this statement now, because I'm not saying allow dodge.
Also before you say that if we allow allocation, we should allow dodge as well... that won't happen. Dodge causes damage to disappear and general consensus allowing that won't happen unless the Jeffs descend to Cyber space and say their version of "forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do".... or would "let there be light" be a better example to use here  )
E> Let's look at it in a different way...
I'm not comparing dodge/allocation as the same thing. To the point of repeating, dodge causes damage to disappear, allocation doesn't.
>> It's important to note that chaff causes damage to disappear too.
The only difference is that the jeffs condoned chaff.
They made no mention of mine damage allocation.
*> (ps - I said this whole thing in a much more concise version in my 1st post..)
Quote:Just because Jeffs acknowledged the chaff issue but didn't know about the other implementation of the mine damage dodge concept for mine damage allocation, doesn't mean that the mine damage allocation is an aberration.
[Updated on: Wed, 26 February 2014 17:48]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 06:34:39 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
