Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Which bugs should be banned?
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Fri, 02 July 2010 18:06   |
|
|
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 20:50 |
I'm not objecting to games with chaff - as has been pointed out, there is serious skill in using it.
I'm objecting to it being allowed by default, since it is, after all, an exploit.
|
This is exactly why I think its not an exploit (any more) and should be allowed by default. It probably was an exploit originally, but in it simplest form it creates an RPS loop which is a mechanic the Jeffs were in favour of, and it is their tacit approval that has made it generally allowed I think.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Sat, 03 July 2010 10:57 |
|
 m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 02 July 2010 10:50 |
Empty CCs or Nubs won't be targeted before warships unless they cost more to build than the warships
|
Ahhh. Now you're shifting emphasis from ships "stats" such as armor, back to "cost". Which means the targeting will need to include the additional brains to calculate and account for all these costs. 
Then chaff would likely evolve into something costly that protects something else that you definitely want living longer, such as a fast-init starbase-killer. 
| Quote: |
But that's nowhere near as cheap as chaff.
|
Indeed. The economics of subverting the targeting algorithms would shift, but it would still be interesting in some (or many) cases. 
| Quote: |
The exploit that allows chaff is that targeting forgets about one missile-one kill. Without that omission, chaff doesn't work at all.
|
Ship captains are paid per destroyed ship, regardless of mass. With your proposed change battles would likely evolve to ressemble the fights seen in fantasy games, where a handful of extremely resilient "tanks" soak up most enemy attacks while the rest of fighters, nimbler, weaker, hit the enemy with almost complete impunity. 
-- Admiral, admiral, we just totally destroyed that huge Battleship!
-- Excellent, now lets destroy that couple thousand frigates before they $%&#@<EOT>
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Sun, 04 July 2010 04:43 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 00:57 |
Ahhh. Now you're shifting emphasis from ships "stats" such as armor, back to "cost". Which means the targeting will need to include the additional brains to calculate and account for all these costs.
|
No, the targeting algorithm already includes ship cost.
| Quote: |
Then chaff would likely evolve into something costly that protects something else that you definitely want living longer, such as a fast-init starbase-killer.
|
Then if the the chaff is more expensive and no harder to kill, why not just build more of your starbase-killers? 
Yes, attractiveness would still matter, but "chaff" wouldn't work.
The one case I can think of where you could make a "chaff-equivalent" would be in the lategame where iron is the limiting factor - building Nubians full of the bor-and-res-expensive Mega-Disruptors would pull fire from the ones that require more iron.
| Quote: |
Indeed. The economics of subverting the targeting algorithms would shift, but it would still be interesting in some (or many) cases.
|
Oh yes. There just wouldn't be the brainless exploit that chaff is.
| Quote: |
Ship captains are paid per destroyed ship, regardless of mass.
|
After one battle in which ships fired at chaff, no general would maintain that insane policy. 
| Quote: |
With your proposed change battles would likely evolve to ressemble the fights seen in fantasy games, where a handful of extremely resilient "tanks" soak up most enemy attacks while the rest of fighters, nimbler, weaker, hit the enemy with almost complete impunity.
-- Admiral, admiral, we just totally destroyed that huge Battleship!
-- Excellent, now lets destroy that couple thousand frigates before they $%&#@<EOT>
|
I'm fairly sure you're wrong there. After all, to make something that draws fire, you have to spend more, which is evidently not worth it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Mon, 05 July 2010 10:46 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 04 July 2010 10:43 |
No, the targeting algorithm already includes ship cost.
|
And is, as you yourself point out, easy to fool. So I guess a new and improved and less naive calculation of costs should be used. 
| Quote: |
Then if the the chaff is more expensive and no harder to kill, why not just build more of your starbase-killers?
|
Because I want them to succeed regardless of what the defenders do? Or perhaps because they're cheap and expendable and do the job while the main fleet is busy absorbing all that enemy firepower, but they cannot succeed alone?
| Quote: |
Yes, attractiveness would still matter, but "chaff" wouldn't work.
|
Perhaps not. Surely not in the cheap ways it works now. But still profitable ways to fool automated targeting might be found.
| Quote: |
make a "chaff-equivalent" would be in the lategame where iron is the limiting factor - building Nubians full of the bor-and-res-expensive Mega-Disruptors would pull fire from the ones that require more iron.
|
MegaDs aren't what I'd call very "lategame". At any rate, for most games beamers are the mainline ships, not missiles. 
| Quote: |
the brainless exploit that chaff is.
|
Not so brainless. Not so cheap either, when you're talking tens of thousands. And definitely not so hard to counter.
| Quote: |
After one battle in which ships fired at chaff, no general would maintain that insane policy.
|
Perhaps one that didn't have any better option? 
| Quote: |
I'm fairly sure you're wrong there. After all, to make something that draws fire, you have to spend more, which is evidently not worth it.
|
Yet it works exactly that way for fantasy gamers. Fat defenders allow nimble offensers to do their work and win the day. Which is always worth it. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Tue, 06 July 2010 01:54 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Then if the the chaff is more expensive and no harder to kill, why not just build more of your starbase-killers?
|
Because I want them to succeed regardless of what the defenders do? Or perhaps because they're cheap and expendable and do the job while the main fleet is busy absorbing all that enemy firepower, but they cannot succeed alone?
|
You don't get it.
To build your "chaff" requires more expense PER DP than building more starbase-killers. Building solely starbase killers would be LESS expensive than building starbase killers and chaff with the same total DP let alone more.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Yes, attractiveness would still matter, but "chaff" wouldn't work.
|
Perhaps not. Surely not in the cheap ways it works now. But still profitable ways to fool automated targeting might be found.
|
Yes.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
make a "chaff-equivalent" would be in the lategame where iron is the limiting factor - building Nubians full of the bor-and-res-expensive Mega-Disruptors would pull fire from the ones that require more iron.
|
MegaDs aren't what I'd call very "lategame". At any rate, for most games beamers are the mainline ships, not missiles.
|
No, I wouldn't call them lategame either. I said that you'd USE this tactic in the lategame.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
the brainless exploit that chaff is.
|
Not so brainless. Not so cheap either, when you're talking tens of thousands. And definitely not so hard to counter.
|
I didn't mean brainless as in "easy". I meant "retarded". As in, your ship captains are obviously retarded.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
After one battle in which ships fired at chaff, no general would maintain that insane policy.
|
Perhaps one that didn't have any better option?
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I'm fairly sure you're wrong there. After all, to make something that draws fire, you have to spend more, which is evidently not worth it.
|
Yet it works exactly that way for fantasy gamers. Fat defenders allow nimble offensers to do their work and win the day. Which is always worth it.
|
No, but that wouldn't work. If the targetting algorithm was fixed to remove the forgetting about one-missile-one-kill, then to build something that draws fire costs more per DP. So your "tank" is necessarily a less efficient tank than your actual warships. Which is useless.
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Tue, 06 July 2010 06:11 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 06 July 2010 07:54 |
You don't get it.
To build your "chaff" requires more expense PER DP than building more starbase-killers. Building solely starbase killers would be LESS expensive than building starbase killers and chaff with the same total DP let alone more.
|
You don't get it. We're talking getting the job done, not just expense. And the SB killers are just an example of things that might get done without resorting to overwhelming force. Chaff is, after all, just another example of the same. Chaff is not free. Anything that gets sacrificed so others can do their job we can call chaff. Or not, but a rose by any other name...
| Quote: |
No, I wouldn't call them lategame either. I said that you'd USE this tactic in the lategame.
|
Not me.
| Quote: |
your ship captains are obviously retarded.
|
They are as smart as the rigid orders they must follow. Improve the orders and they'll be less dumb. But they'll still be fooled by the right trick.
| Quote: |
No, but that wouldn't work. If the targetting algorithm was fixed to remove the forgetting about one-missile-one-kill
|
Ok, we're firmly into fantasyland now. If the targeting algorithm was magically perfect then nothing would work, raw firepower would always win, and missiles would be king again. End of game. Nothing to see. Everybody go home.
Gee, wonder if that was why the Jeffs introduced the "one-missile, one-kill" rule in the 1st place? 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Tue, 06 July 2010 23:05 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 06 July 2010 20:11 |
| magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 06 July 2010 07:54 |
You don't get it.
To build your "chaff" requires more expense PER DP than building more starbase-killers. Building solely starbase killers would be LESS expensive than building starbase killers and chaff with the same total DP let alone more.
|
You don't get it. We're talking getting the job done, not just expense. And the SB killers are just an example of things that might get done without resorting to overwhelming force. Chaff is, after all, just another example of the same. Chaff is not free. Anything that gets sacrificed so others can do their job we can call chaff. Or not, but a rose by any other name...
|
What's the point of building chaff, if you can just build more of whatever you were wanting to protect and get more dp (hence more longevity) and more firepower? If your decoys need to cost as much as a warship, why not slap some weapons on and call it a warship?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
No, I wouldn't call them lategame either. I said that you'd USE this tactic in the lategame.
|
Not me.
|
Why not? Saves you iron.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
your ship captains are obviously retarded.
|
They are as smart as the rigid orders they must follow. Improve the orders and they'll be less dumb. But they'll still be fooled by the right trick.
|
Which will hopefully be less of a game-changer than chaff.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
No, but that wouldn't work. If the targetting algorithm was fixed to remove the forgetting about one-missile-one-kill
|
Ok, we're firmly into fantasyland now. If the targeting algorithm was magically perfect then nothing would work, raw firepower would always win, and missiles would be king again. End of game. Nothing to see. Everybody go home.
|
I've already pointed out the one-line fix that would remove the chaff exploit.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Wed, 07 July 2010 04:13 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 07 July 2010 05:05 |
What's the point of building chaff, if you can just build more of whatever you were wanting to protect and get more dp (hence more longevity) and more firepower?
|
Because all of that might still not be enough without the decoy. 
There are tons of reasons why most successful fleets are built of diferent designs mixed together.
| Quote: |
If your decoys need to cost as much as a warship, why not slap some weapons on and call it a warship?
|
Oh, they would most likely need to be a warship. Just like chaff. And yet still be just a decoy. A distraction. Something that's contributing to reach the goal only indirectly. Just like chaff.
| Quote: |
Why not? Saves you iron.
|
I'd rather save Iron by using AMPs. Or Torpedoes.
Plus, if these beamers are going to be the bulk of a race's forces, they better be worth on their own, and not just as excess minerals dump.
| Quote: |
Which will hopefully be less of a game-changer than chaff.
|
A decoy is a decoy is a decoy is a decoy...
The more different tactics available in battle, the better.
| Quote: |
I've already pointed out the one-line fix that would remove the chaff exploit.
|
Yeah, removing the one-line fix that the Jeffs put there for very good reasons.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Sat, 10 July 2010 07:35 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 07 July 2010 18:13 |
| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 07 July 2010 05:05 |
What's the point of building chaff, if you can just build more of whatever you were wanting to protect and get more dp (hence more longevity) and more firepower?
|
Because all of that might still not be enough without the decoy.
|
That's literally impossible, because your decoy+real fleet will take less time to wipe out completely than an all-real fleet of the same cost.
| Quote: |
There are tons of reasons why most successful fleets are built of diferent designs mixed together.
|
There are, and this is not one of them.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
If your decoys need to cost as much as a warship, why not slap some weapons on and call it a warship?
|
Oh, they would most likely need to be a warship. Just like chaff. And yet still be just a decoy. A distraction. Something that's contributing to reach the goal only indirectly. Just like chaff.
|
I have already demonstrated why this doesn't work in the absence of the chaff hole in the targetting algorithm.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Which will hopefully be less of a game-changer than chaff.
|
A decoy is a decoy is a decoy is a decoy...
The more different tactics available in battle, the better.
|
I have no clue what you're getting at here.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I've already pointed out the one-line fix that would remove the chaff exploit.
|
Yeah, removing the one-line fix that the Jeffs put there for very good reasons.
|
No. I'm not talking about removing one-missile-one=kill, I'm talking about making the targetting algorithm know about one-missile-one-kill.
Unless you're telling me that it originally did, and the Jeffs deliberately made it stupider to allow chaff?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Sun, 11 July 2010 14:04 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sat, 10 July 2010 13:35 |
That's literally impossible, because your decoy+real fleet will take less time to wipe out completely than an all-real fleet of the same cost.
|
It's literally impossible that you know that, even for your imagined flawless targeting algorithm.
| Quote: |
There are, and this is not one of them.
|
Different ships filling different roles is not one of them? Oh my...
| Quote: |
I have already demonstrated why this doesn't work in the absence of the chaff hole in the targetting algorithm.
|
What you have already demonstrated is that you believe in magically perfect algorithms. The vast majority of games and real world targeting systems support my belief in the opposite.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Which will hopefully be less of a game-changer than chaff.
|
A decoy is a decoy is a decoy is a decoy...
The more different tactics available in battle, the better.
|
I have no clue what you're getting at here.
|
Think about it: your ship captains believe you when told that there is no possibility of a decoy, or for that matter of any significant variations of the same old tried-and-true tactics. Yet a smarter enemy succesfully deploys them. Whoopsy, all dead. And then you'll call them dumb. 
| Quote: |
I'm not talking about removing one-missile-one=kill, I'm talking about making the targetting algorithm know about one-missile-one-kill.
|
You're talking about the Jeffs oh-so-carelessly ignoring one of the most important side-effects of one of their better-known fixes to the game engine. Yeah, right.
| Quote: |
Unless you're telling me that it originally did, and the Jeffs deliberately made it stupider to allow chaff?
|
There used to be complaints about battles devolving into simple "biggest-gun-wins" slugfests, where only missile firepower mattered. Boredom ensued. That was fixed. The fix turned out to create some "unintended" effects. Those were not fixed. Funny, that.
...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Mon, 12 July 2010 08:27 |
|
|
|
| Tabini wrote on Mon, 12 July 2010 04:45 |
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sat, 10 July 2010 07:35 |
That's literally impossible, because your decoy+real fleet will take less time to wipe out completely than an all-real fleet of the same cost.
|
I would think that losing so much damage to the chaff would make that the opposite? Isn't that what chaff is for? I not understanding.
Can you show an example?
|
He means if the targetting algorithm was modified to make it understand that it can't kill more than one frigate/scout per missile (thus making FF/SS chaff no longer be the first target for missiles in most situations.) He's arguing that if you modified that one aspect of the targeting algorithm, then there would not be a cost effective way to exploit the targeting algorithm.
He's somewhat correct... However you could still play around with things a little, draw missile fire against cheaper ships through the selective use of jammers. The cheaper, less-jammed, ships would still have to pull their weight though - they'd be far, far, less cost effective than chaff.
Without chaff, the pre-nubian era would be utterly dominated by missiles... Sounds less interesting to me. The discussion is a bit moot anyway - I can't say I'm much worried over whether 'chaff allowed' or 'chaff banned' is 'default', since pretty much every advertised game explicitly specifies one or the other 
[Updated on: Mon, 12 July 2010 08:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Which bugs should be banned? |
Mon, 12 July 2010 14:43 |
|
| Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sat, 10 July 2010 07:35 |
| [email |
m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 07 July 2010 18:13| magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 07 July 2010 05:05 |
What's the point of building chaff, if you can just build more of whatever you were wanting to protect and get more dp (hence more longevity) and more firepower?
|
Because all of that might still not be enough without the decoy.
|
That's literally impossible, because your decoy+real fleet will take less time to wipe out completely than an all-real fleet of the same cost.
|
Bear in mind that attractiveness determines ship movement. If the enemy ships move to be in range of the decoy ship and that takes them out of range of the dangerous ships, the decoy has effective dp equal to the total damage output of every ship in the enemy fleet.
It is tricky to do, but I have experimented with using several designs of chaff in the same battle to force enemy ships to stop moving (any orders other than max damage or disengage) or only move at speed one after the first round (max damage orders). While their beamers sit still or crawl forward and their missile ships sit happily out of range of all but the frontmost chaff, my missile ships butcher the beamers. After my experiments were done, I used it twice in major battles - once it worked perfectly and once it failed because of the bug where ships with a speed of 2.25 or 2.5 sometimes only move two squares in the first round. But even the failure got their beamers to stay in place for one round... sometimes that might be enough. Of course you can't often spare six design slots for chaff, but it can be well worth it. I gave it up because of the movement bug but that may be fixed in FreeStars.
Whatever algorithm you come up with, it is going to be exploitable in some way. I think the best compromise you can come up with is to include firepower in the attractiveness formula, even if it as simple as adding rating to cost before dividing by defenses. That would increase the cost of chaff, which makes it less effective. Chaff does not project power, ergo when more is spent on it you reduce the amount of power you can project. Fewer real warships translates into less ability to split your fleets and remain effective, for one thing.
One out of five dentists recommends occasional random executions to keep the peasants cowed and servile.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 16:46:36 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
