Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Known Cheats (and the standard disclaimer...)
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 05:23 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 April 2014 21:24
Please explain.
Why is the rule unworkable?
What is the simplest analysis that it cannot withstand?
What are the unacceptable loopholes?
You're trying to do the cost/benefit analysis beforehand, so it'll never cover all the possible cases. Worse, you're trying to limit options for Hosts and players that face all these cases. That's a no-no. And even a no-no-no.
An unacceptable loophole is the too simple circumventions of your supposedly easy and workable rule that exactly allows the precise exploit everybody else is trying to avoid. So your rule, under the guise of a limitation, is actually blessing all the other exploits you didn't spell out. Great work!
To top it all, you deny there's simpler and more optimal ways to at least allow Hosts and players to use their own good judgement on the issue, should they need to deal with the endless exploits this bug can allow.
Quote:You vote for improving it and making it simpler, but you have not said anything about how we might do that.
Anything? After several wall-o'texts?
What about sticking to the Standard Cheat Disclaimer, then? Can anything be simpler than that?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 05:37 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 02:15I agree that extracting the messages reduces the time required to find the potential cases of mine damage dodge, while providing 100% confidence that all potential cases are being detected.
If the game host wishes to monitor the game in this way and analyze each case, then this is the best known solution.
Well, fancy that, this is the exact same rule I was trying to suggest and you rejected as "useless blabber". Glad to know you didn't actually mean it.
Quote:But I prefer to avoid putting anything else on the host's plate. Adding this analysis to the host's responsibilities can only slow down the game. It does potentially provide a 100% mine-damage-dodge free game. But as a player, I'm more willing to play in a game that offers a clear, simple, enforceable rule that creates known, balanced costs for employing the mine damage dodge strategy, than a game that may require the host to put the game on hold in order to examine possible cases of mine damage dodge.
In other words, you'd rather allow cheating and blatant subversion of a game than let mistakes and unlawful gains be fixed and the game allowed to proceed normally?
Quote:I don't think banning mine damage dodge is sufficient, since it can happen unintentionally. You have to specify what the penalty will be when it does happen. And in my opinion, that penalty has to apply regardless of the intent of the dodging player.
Ok, you're definitely quoting me. So do it 'til the end, then: "the penalty shall be proportional to the benefits obtained". And while I'm at it, I'll add that Hosts should be free to decide how much that proportion should be, up to and including banning of exploiters, since the goal of the rule should be to discourage such exploits, not encourage them.
Quote:I would not want to be the host stuck with making a judgement about a borderline case, especially if that judgement could swing the result of a game.
Well, here I'd like to ask others exactly how many times have they seen a game derailed by a more-or-less-unintentional happenstance of tanking. Can an entire race's fate be decided by a fleet of 5 or less ships? Has anyone witnessed a major battle decided by a few percent dmg points? Why are some people so worried about big mixed fleets? Has anyone ever seen a typical fleet significantly benefiting from this bug?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 06:11 |
|
XAPBob | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 10:23What about sticking to the Standard Cheat Disclaimer, then? Can anything be simpler than that?
Yes - so no mixed fleets, no fleets with more than one ship (since that reduces per ship damage)
Oh, and no ISB - or IT can't use two specific gates
No more than one SD in any given game?
This whole discussion came about because I spotted a couple of things that "looked wrong" in the current standard disclaimer
There are two ways to make a typical destroyer survive a minehit:
- Stack 5 (or more) of them
- Add a single chaff in a lower slot number
The first of those is considered a legitimate tactic, exploiting the difference between mindamage(fleet) and mindamage(ship).
The second is not, exploiting the allocation of damage in a mixed fleet to "dodge" the damage at vastly reduced cost when compared with the first.
Both rely on knowledge of the damage algorithms, as does missile chaff - and a whole host of other tactics (maximising pop growth, IS colonist shipping, calculating packet sizes etc...) rely on knowledge of the, often empirically derived, algorithms behind the game.
The original question I had wasn't even about the dodge - it was about allocation. Allocation is built into the Stars! engine, it can't be changed without banning mixed fleets (or minefields ). What can be done is that ships designs can be coordinated (usually) so that they aren't making the minefield explode onto nothing.
At least with chaff sweeping the minefield does the maximum possible damage to a fleet (100%), it's then knowledge that the field size if calculated after each fleet moves that allows the battle fleet to move safely.
For "allocation" we are merely controlling (to a limited extent) how that mindamage(fleet) is distributed over multiple designs - conditional on the mindamage(fleet) still being allocated somewhere.
I assert that doing so is not a cheat - the damage is taken - for a numerical case study see Lowtek.
Noone expects that the damage dodge be routinely allowed - but allocation is a game mechanic that cannot be reasonably avoided.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 11:58 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 15:07
Well, here I'd like to ask others exactly how many times have they seen a game derailed by a more-or-less-unintentional happenstance of tanking. Can an entire race's fate be decided by a fleet of 5 or less ships? Has anyone witnessed a major battle decided by a few percent dmg points? Why are some people so worried about big mixed fleets? Has anyone ever seen a typical fleet significantly benefiting from this bug?
Yes. It can affect an empire quite drastically..
I know of a case where the exploit wasn't noticed by the enemies, nor the host. It went on for 30-40 odd years.
The player using it didn't know it was a bug and didn't even realise it was happening.
He didn't even use it for every fleet, but it was used for sweeping or scouting iirc. Don't know the exact details.
Imagine the condition of the host here.
Is he supposed to dole out a tough punishment or a lenient one?
It could change the sector's dynamics completely.. Cripple the race/give the enemy a chance to counter-attack.. or not punish him enough and he gains all that intangible advantage of intel + faster movement over the year.
In my own gaming experience, I was playing a test IS One World Race that was meant to kill 1 neighbour and die fighting a 2nd neighbour..
Sadly, a mine dodge penalty cut out my intel gathering AND part of my fleet...
3-4 years later, my OWW station died against a jihad DD fleet and obviously died soon after.
ps (what the hell was the shortform for that.. OWRace/OWWonder?)
That's why, I would agree with Skoormit that something needs to be done..
Not sure which option though,, either deciding the punishment before hand (slightly tough, as it depends on how much it's been abused or taken advantage of).. or allow it all together... (which I don't really like as it removes the few advantages of minefields even more)...
I guess the host sending out an email explaining the bug (so that enemies can spot it too) + a standard punishment?
What would you suggest?
x resources of MA or
deleting the fleet design or part of it?
x years of MA?
There seems to be no way to standardize the punishment, that means that we come back to the same point.. the effects can range from one extreme of crippling an empire or allowing it to get away with a substantial advantage.
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 |
Thu, 17 April 2014 12:01 |
|
|
obtw, my earlier post was about dodge.
Allocation HAS to be allowed as it breaks no rules, as currently stated.
If so, then you can't use ANY combo ship fleets in ANY game, because allocation happens EVERYTIME a minefield hit happens.
The only differentiating factor is that no advantage is being ostensibly taken by others.
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 |
Thu, 17 April 2014 12:07 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 16 April 2014 22:14XAPBob wrote on Tue, 15 April 2014 12:24I can't believe you've never seen a case where a ship has received less damage from a minehit that it would have done alone - because that happens in EVERY mixed fleet.
You can believe that more people would have noticed years ago if it often happened that a weak ship survived a minehit it never should have.
But in line with your listing of all the possible options, lets recap a bit:
1) Whenever an entire fleet dies by minehit, no one cares or notices about dmg allocations.
2) Whenever an entire fleet survives a minehit, dmg allocation has happened and is unavoidable, but if every ship could have survived the hit on its own, do we care that their dmgs are slightly off-kilter? Do they matter? In battle perhaps? How much? Plenty of games, players, and battles that this bug didn't seem to affect would tell us that "not a lot".
3) Whenever a cheap "decoy" manages to soak much more dmg than it should, dying in the process so other ships survive relatively unscathed, the bug has significantly altered the outcome. Even if it can't be shown that it was triggered on purpose, the "benefits" should be erased. Everybody agrees on that, I believe.
3a) The "decoy" turns out to be a large number of chaff, perhaps all the chaff in the fleet. The "benefits" can be weighed against the losses, and penalties sized accordingly.
4) Whenever a weak ship survives a minehit it should never have, the bug has totally altered the outcome. Even if it can't be shown that it was triggered on purpose, the "benefits" should be erased. Is should be easy to agree on that, too.
4a) A large number of chaff is sacrificed so a weak ship survives a minehit it should never have. See case 4)
Am I missing some other important cases? Do we need to add significant sub-cases?
Case 1) Is easy to police and decide. Case 2) Is easy to detect, harder to decide. Human judgement required. Case 3) is easy to check against historic data, yet it might require human judgement. Same for 3a). Case 4) can be checked against historic data, and the only judgement required would be the size of the penalty. Same for 4a).
Note that for all cases, I'm only looking at the "benefits", plus perhaps intentionality. I don't need to define any other rules to get rid of abuses. I don't need to ban tactics nor game "mechanics". I go straight to the value of what is achieved from triggering a bug, and decide the penalty directly from the size of the advantage gained. This way, even case 2) turns out to be not so hard to decide.
Finally, this is not the only process that can make good use of historic data, even of X files (which SAH backups IIRC), so we better get used to the idea of building and using our own "history" files.
XAPBob wrote on Tue, 15 April 2014 12:24we either accept that this is an intentional decision (and it looks like it is) with an unintended consequence of the damage vanishing (hence banning the dodge) or we assume the Jeffs put a significant amount of logic into the game for fun? Surely an equal spread of damage would have been far easier to calculate!
Who knows with the Jeffs.
I'd rather believe they used one of their usual code shortcuts to speedup/simplify dmg allocation, perhaps assigning rounding errors to the 1st handy place, didn't find any significant problems and went ahead with more pressing things. The years it took for this bug to be noticed would seem to support their (hasty) decision.
so point 2 has a subjective reaction.. Human judgement required?
Doesn't that lead to the same problem I mentioned in the earlier post?
I apply the same logic of gate heal merge here.
If the gate heal merge was allowed, I don't understand why this is any different.
As long as all the damage is soaked up, it's not a bug.
If you disagree (@m.a stars), you host a game of more than 8 players and keep checking.. and if it happens, I w
...
[Updated on: Thu, 17 April 2014 12:13]
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 |
Thu, 17 April 2014 12:11 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 15 April 2014 14:18XAPBob wrote on Mon, 14 April 2014 21:45They're indistinguishable in terms of the M file - you just know how many ships were lost, without the m AND x files from previous years you can't tell which.
So, zero ships killed cannot be noticed? That's just the kind of message that pokes the eye when reviewing a turn.
As for knowing the ID # of the lowly casualties, I realize that probably requires actually opening the Ship Designer after checking scan data from the previous turn. Not so hard?
Quote:I don't think tanking is an issue - if we do then mixed fleets are over
Need I point out that across more than a hundred games I have almost never seen an unintentional instance of "tanking" despite pretty much everyone's use of mixed fleets of all flavors and design IDs? That might be why I won't worry about mixed fleets but you can bet I'll very closely watch anyone suffering even just one "lucky" event of "tanking".
Quote:chaff sweeping (which for some reason has drawn no objectors...
Oh, there were objections back in the day, but consensus was quick that it wasn't cheap, it was almost precisely spelled out in the helpfile, and it weakened defensive minefields only so much.
I tried, but I really can't quote and reply to every post that m.a made.
All I know is that if I'm ever playing in a game where he's playing as well, I'm going to discuss mine damage ***allocation*** very clearly with the host.
If it's allowed, great.. if not, I'll know that I can find a different game.
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 |
Thu, 17 April 2014 12:38 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 12:11no mixed fleets, no fleets with more than one ship (since that reduces per ship damage)
I have yet to see any statistics showing such drastic measures are needed.
Quote:Oh, and no ISB - or IT can't use two specific gates
Wasn't the general consensus that ISB vs IT wasn't a true cheat? Unavoidable, unexploitable, and so far devoid of any statistics showing how much IT races are weakened by it?
Quote:No more than one SD in any given game?
Another one that doesn't seem to be a very pressing concern. Probably because whenever some1 has tried to exploit it, some Host has stomped them flat.
Though probably the "Standard Disclaimer" can be improved, it's only a minimum list that most Hosts seem willing and able to adapt when needed. "Everything else is banned" leaves enough leeway for reasonable compromises and penalties.
Quote:This whole discussion came about because I spotted a couple of things that "looked wrong" in the current standard disclaimer
Specifically allowing a particular exploit, as some people want, would seem even more wrong.
Quote:There are two ways to make a typical destroyer survive a minehit:
- Stack 5 (or more) of them
- Add a single chaff in a lower slot number
The first of those is considered a legitimate tactic, exploiting the difference between mindamage(fleet) and mindamage(ship).
Yep. The helpfile's clarity in spelling out the differences seems to invite players to use bigger fleets.
Quote:The second is not, exploiting the allocation of damage in a mixed fleet to "dodge" the damage at vastly reduced cost when compared with the first.
Neither the game's rules nor the helpfile explain or even hint anywhere that something as secondary as Design ID can confer "magical" anti-mine abilities.
Quote:Both rely on knowledge of the damage algorithms, as does missile chaff - and a whole host of other tactics (maximising pop growth, IS colonist shipping, calculating packet sizes etc...) rely on knowledge of the, often empirically derived, algorithms behind the game.
All these other tactics were known long enough ago that the game's own creators were able to answer any doubts about them.
Quote:The original question I had wasn't even about the dodge - it was about allocation.
I see the two as only different in scale and potential harm caused. So the easier solution naturally presents itself: look for the benefits!
Quote:Allocation is built into the Stars! engine, it can't be changed without banning mixed fleets (or minefields ).
Does it need to be changed? Where are all the games and players hurt by its not-so-prevalent triggering over the years?
Quote:What can be done is that ships designs can be coordinated (usually) so that they aren't making the minefield explode onto nothing.
As a partial solution, why not. Anything that simplifies the umpire's work is good. But it's not a complete foolproof solution.
Quote:For "allocation" we are merely controlling (to a limited extent) how that mindamage(fleet) is distributed over multiple designs - conditional on the mindamage(fleet) still being allocated somewhere.
I assert that doing so is not a cheat - the damage is taken - for a numerical case study see Lowtek.
A fascinating read! Seems I'm not alone in considering benefits as the main deciding point in each case.
Quote:Noone expects that the damage dodge be routinely allowed
Some people not far from here sure do. They're pushing as hard as they can to get it legitimately added to their regular toolbox. In some games and with some Hosts they have succeeded.
Quote:but allocation is a game mechanic that cannot be reasonably avoided.
And again I repeat my main doubt: how does it affect normal games when it's not being actively exploited? It cannot be a lot, or many more people would have noticed it and complained about it before.
...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 12:40 |
|
|
neilhoward wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 13:54skoormit wrote on Wed, 16 April 2014 17:15I would not want to be the host stuck with making a judgement about a borderline case, especially if that judgement could swing the result of a game.
neilhoward wrote on Mon, 13 June 2011 17:302436: Nmidian Space
Disaster! An unnamed commander apparently slept through the academy course which advised against using front-line cruisers as crash sweepers. Despite being accompanied by older frigates, the cruisers were destroyed and all hands lost. The admiralty announced minutes ago that the designs for both the Matchstick class cruiser and the Pebbles in the Skies class frigate have been decommissioned.
The admiralty suspended all fleet activity and movement this year for procedural review.
Colonists of the Nmidian worlds have declared they will commemorate the mineral alchemy of 2436 to the memory of this tragedy, and spend the year in peaceful reflection.
neilhoward wrote on Mon, 13 June 2011 11:08neilhoward eyeing the banhammerDon't let it happen again
BlueTurbit wrote on Tue, 14 June 2011 07:51Live by the rule, or die by the ruler!
yea, that was the OWW IS race I was trying out in early 2011.
Btw were you the host of that game? I am pretty sure it was maniclurch and not you.
The posts make it look as if you were the host.
[Updated on: Thu, 17 April 2014 12:42]
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 |
Thu, 17 April 2014 12:55 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
nmid wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 17:58Yes. It can affect an empire quite drastically..
I know of a case where the exploit wasn't noticed by the enemies, nor the host. It went on for 30-40 odd years.
The player using it didn't know it was a bug and didn't even realise it was happening.
He didn't even use it for every fleet, but it was used for sweeping or scouting iirc. Don't know the exact details.
Ouch! Evidently, ignorance is not bliss here.
Quote:Imagine the condition of the host here.
Is he supposed to dole out a tough punishment or a lenient one?
Perhaps one proportional to the benefits?
- If the main benefit was intel-gathering, trim his scout fleets.
- If the main benefit was reducing enemy minefields, trim his own, or at least his sweepers.
- If the main benefit was planets conquered, give them back! (plus perhaps some interest)
... and so on.
Quote:In my own gaming experience, I was playing a test IS One World Race that was meant to kill 1 neighbour and die fighting a 2nd neighbour..
Sadly, a mine dodge penalty cut out my intel gathering AND part of my fleet...
3-4 years later, my OWW station died against a jihad DD fleet and obviously died soon after.
Harsh. Was the punishment proportional to the benefits (however unintentional) you gained?
Quote:ps (what the hell was the shortform for that.. OWRace/OWWonder?)
I've seen OWW or even 1WW more often.
Quote:either deciding the punishment before hand (slightly tough, as it depends on how much it's been abused or taken advantage of).. or allow it all together... (which I don't really like as it removes the few advantages of minefields even more)...
I guess the host sending out an email explaining the bug (so that enemies can spot it too) + a standard punishment?
Or the 3rd, more reasonable way: decide the punishment after knowing how much it's been abused or taken advantage of, once we're sure everybody knows what the bug is and how it can (but shouldn't) be exploited.
Quote:There seems to be no way to standardize the punishment, that means that we come back to the same point.. the effects can range from one extreme of crippling an empire or allowing it to get away with a substantial advantage.
Exactly my point. It could even be put to player vote, but it would hardly be worse than setting the penalty in stone before even knowing how the bug will affect the game. What if the penalty was affordable enough that some enterprising soul decided it was well worth the cost?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 13:04 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
XAPBob wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 17:58How many fleets of <4 nubians do you fly into battle?
Not many, but if the exploit was explicitly allowed, that could change.
Quote:Additionally you are unlikely to have BBs which are so damaged they will avoid the maximum damage...
But I'm very likely to have obsolete ships destined for the scrapper, so it would be easy to repurpose them as "tanks".
Quote:It's just not an issue.
And it will be best if it's kept that way.
Quote:The definition of dodge seems pretty clear - (ships overkilled) && (damage to remaining ships << damage they would have had without overkilled ships in fleet)
Enforcing that is like anything else, it needs player honesty and observation - no host has the time to go through every move by every player for every turn.
Punishments decided by the host, as best they can - probably after talking to all affected races.
Indeed!
Quote:Allocation is unavoidable and is not a cheat, it is an algorithm like any other in the game.
It can be unavoidable, and it can be of little consequence, but if it's actively exploited and it does have consequences, then it deserves no better treatment than the dodge itself. Why should a single chaff protecting a couple DDs be punished and a different scheme saving hundreds or even thousands of dmg points allowed?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 13:22 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
nmid wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 18:07so point 2 has a subjective reaction.. Human judgement required?
Doesn't that lead to the same problem I mentioned in the earlier post?
A problem with a solution that you yourself pointed out in that old Lowtek thread.
Quote:I apply the same logic of gate heal merge here.
If the gate heal merge was allowed, I don't understand why this is any different.
As long as all the damage is soaked up, it's not a bug.
It is a bug, just not a very prevalent or damaging one. "gate heal merge" is hard to avoid as merging has many legit uses. It also gives a slight advantage to overgating defenders, something they could use more of. The "mine damage bug" gives a potentially enormous advantage to attackers, something they don't really need more of.
Fortunately, a way to the solution exists, as there should always be possible to look at the actual benefits obtained, and tax them accordingly.
Quote:If you disagree (@m.a stars), you host a game of more than 8 players and keep checking.. and if it happens, I would love to see how you resolve the problem without affecting the balance in that area of the universe.
I'm not sure I'd care more about the balance *after* the exploit as about the balance *before* the exploit, but I'd surely want to tailor the punishment to the harm done, instead of relying on some convoluted rule practically guaranteed to be of no use in restoring the situation to a playable state.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 13:36 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 22:52
Quote:I apply the same logic of gate heal merge here.
If the gate heal merge was allowed, I don't understand why this is any different.
As long as all the damage is soaked up, it's not a bug.
It is a bug, just not a very prevalent or damaging one. "gate heal merge" is hard to avoid as merging has many legit uses. It also gives a slight advantage to overgating defenders, something they could use more of. The "mine damage bug" gives a potentially enormous advantage to attackers, something they don't really need more of.
Your suggestion thus precludes me from using minicolo fuelers for my sweeper dds in any way.
If it's a lower number (lesser numbered) ship design, it's mine damage dodge with the mini colo taking 75% damage.
If it's a higher number (greater numbered) ship design, it's mine damage allocation with the mini colo taking 25% damage.
With a sweeper DD having limited fuel, it definitely gets a big leap in range with the mini colo fuelers attached.
Lets talk about my SS sweeper fleet combo..
I would add a pen scanner FF, chaff to ping and a sweeper.
Again, that would be allocation coming into play.
Why would I give up my SS cloak advantage from the scout ff design to get my chaff pingers closer to enemy planets closer under cloak?
(in the eg, the sweeper DD is on the top with the chaff/scout at the bottom).
Anyways, the point is there are valid uses of having fleet combos that will prima-facie look like they are using the dodge.
.. AND gate heal merge is used for HEALING as well, very specifically and blatantly. It's not just to minimize MM.
Same way, the allocation CAN be used.
It's like you have 2 coins with you.
But you are looking at the heads of coin A, but tails of coin B.
Why aren't you looking at the same side for both coins?
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 |
Thu, 17 April 2014 17:04 |
|
XAPBob | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
The ability to ask the Jeffs doesn't actually matter.
I might have one extra piece of information (which I have failed to put in previous posts)
Quote:For small fleets, 5 ships or less - with multiple designs in fleet:
The first design in the fleet menu (sorted by F4 design order), takes damage as for a single design fleet, but the 500 (600) is modified first by the number of missing/gained engines * 100 (125). The rest of the ships in the fleet take 100 (125) per engine. Missing engines are compared to the number of engines the fleet would have, had all the designs had the same number of engines:
The DODGE is limited to this section of the algorithm - small, mixed, fleets.
The mindamage(ship) value is obtained by:
- Having more than 5 vessels in a fleet
- Having another ship with a lower slot ID in the fleet
The difference between 4 other "same" ships and 1 "chaff" is pretty clear in terms of cost.
You "allocate" or "tank" damage by having 5 ships in a fleet, you "allocate" damage by having resilient ship designs, you 'dodge' damage by putting a small ship with lone skirmishers/interceptors/sweepers. It is this dodge that is unbalancing, and is (rightly) banned in most games.
If you ever fly ships with <500dp/engine then you shouldn't ever group them in a fleet of 5, because the damage will be "allocated", or "tanked".
That's not what people here are saying. They are saying that the dodging of damage is an abuse of the game mechanic, not that the game mechanic must be somehow bypassed (by never having small fleets?)
In the early midgame minefields are a reasonably effective defense, and sweeping fleets cost a significant amount of resource. To increase survivability you can build 5 ships, I'll build 2 - one of which is dirt cheap.
That's what we're talking about - not changing the rules, just clarifying them.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 21:32 |
|
|
Hi,
there are no easy way to check the cheat of minefield doge as there are to many variants that are logic to us.
easies and always work is ban minefields and SS ( bat this could be a lack of fun but also brings new strategies)
This is only my meaning as player not as moderator:
Most important of all is don't try to change the meaning of M.A.@stars. He is a great stars player and have a good knowing how the game runs.
But he want to be right so if you have nothing 100% clear he will not accept it. As he is right even if it is possible to 0.01%. So let it be good and save your time.
I have not read all posts so maybe I am complete wrong... but don't think so. As I have M.A.@stars still on ignore and have only read the quotes.
ccmaster
[Updated on: Thu, 17 April 2014 21:34] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Thu, 17 April 2014 22:55 |
|
neilhoward | | Commander | Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008 Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
nmid wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 09:40
yea, that was the OWW IS race I was trying out in early 2011.
Btw were you the host of that game? I am pretty sure it was maniclurch and not you.
The posts make it look as if you were the host.
I was the host. That was KFIAPB, the first in the series. I didn't believe you were intentionally cheating, as allocation was allowed in another game you were playing. IIRC, the harshness of the penalty was due in part to other players "accidentally" triggering exploits (including n/s minefield movement and some overload), as well as the fact that I could see that Slim was about to stomp you. Also, I am a jerk.
ccmaster wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 18:32... still on ignore and have only read the quotes.
ccmaster
Wow. I don't remember why I took him off ignore, but I am sure that it was related to him being very knowledgeable about the game; fixed. The conversation looks much less tedious now, still a little tl;dr though.
I will use some chaff/DD combos for spot sweeping, and I will also add some armoured/shielded FFs to DD sweeper cohorts for reduced cost, but I will still mostly stick to 5xDD sweeper fleets.
[Updated on: Thu, 17 April 2014 23:05] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Known Cheats |
Fri, 18 April 2014 05:45 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
nmid wrote on Thu, 17 April 2014 19:36Your suggestion thus precludes me from using minicolo fuelers for my sweeper dds in any way.
See? That's a seriuos misconception right there because my suggestion is to leave the decision to each game's Host, who then would follow the general guideline of tailoring any penalties to the real benefits obtained, as you yourself outlined in LowTek.
Quote:Anyways, the point is there are valid uses of having fleet combos that will prima-facie look like they are using the dodge.
That's why human judgement is required and any before-game rule is gonna be incomplete and mostly useless.
Quote:.. AND gate heal merge is used for HEALING as well, very specifically and blatantly. It's not just to minimize MM.
Same way, the allocation CAN be used.
For me it's more like: can we ignore the small benefits these two bugs provide, regardless of whether those benefits are being purposefully sought? Can game balance be restored with minimal intervention? If yes, the way forward is easy. If not, it's not that hard either. The answer still lies in the benefits/advantages/legit uses/whatever vs the harm caused.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jun 14 09:22:06 EDT 2024
|