| Re: Late game minesweeper |
Wed, 06 May 2009 22:40   |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| vonKreedon wrote on Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24 |
I'm going to argue that this is not a cheat, but rather a tactic that exploits game mechanics, like multi-packeting or multi-player bombing or chaff or merge on overgating or chaff sweeping.
|
Correct, and as such it is up to the host to define if it is legal in the game, and you as the player to decide if you want to play by those rules. I, for example, would ban it for sure. IMO, it is not on the same level as the other features you list.
Multi-packeting is hardly destabilizing or very powerful if you are careful, except perhaps in certain situations. Multi-player bombing is rarely ever used, except in team games (or at least not in my games). Collision sweeping is limited quite severely via cost and # of fleets used.
OTOH, this feature has a drastic impact on an SD's advantages in particular, and I will be adding it to my "banned" list. 
my2cents
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game minesweeper |
Wed, 06 May 2009 23:09 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Bystander wrote on Wed, 06 May 2009 21:30 |
When we talk about chaff sweeping, it like saying: "O.K. Kirk, Picardi, Janeway, Archer and 98% of you other captains, climb into these kamikaze rust buckets and race full speed into the nearest mine! We've crunched the numbers with our utilities and micro-managed all the fleet numbers so the big ships can go in unscathed!" 
|
Yea, but if you are gonna nit pick on that level, then you need to address this never ending supply of Torps and Missiles, with no cost to replenish them. I seem to recall that many of the startrek episodes had ammunition limitations as a theme.
| Quote: |
Maybe I should just consider the chaff as automated drones.
|
And not free, either...
Further, chaff sweeping "expense" is fair, IMHO, as its "cost" is inversely proportional to the size of the empire. Meaning, if you are a small empire in medium universe (or any universe), the cost is less trivial, but you *can* do it easily as you have less fleets. When the cost is trivial in a huge packed or as a large dominate player, it is nearly impossible because of fleet limits. Hence, my view is to not ban it.
| Quote: |
And some other people have complained that minefields in general make the game too slow and defensive. So maybe chaff sweeping is equivalent to the "en passant" rule added to chess after hundreds of years to loosen up the game.
|
Well, this is just nonsense. At best, minefields give you 2 extra years attack prep. Normally it is just a year. However, I have been known to just divvy up a fleet into SB killers, and send enough so that the odds are very good 1 gets through.
A SD *might* be able to delay the attack longer if the other player has never dealt with someone skilled at laying minefields, and has not prepared properly. However, that does not mean it can't be done.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game minesweeper |
Thu, 07 May 2009 02:29 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| GJScarritt wrote on Wed, 06 May 2009 22:07 |
I always thought overlapping fields increased the chances of hitting a mine.
|
Only if those MFs are of a different type, e.g. overlapping normal and heavy MFs. Here a ship would be checked twice for a mine hit.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 07 May 2009 02:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game minesweeper |
Thu, 07 May 2009 12:53 |
|
| Alter Ego |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 283
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany | |
|
Yes, but to do that, he has to remember reading something similar in the past...
AE
War does not determine who is right. Just who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Late game minesweeper |
Thu, 07 May 2009 12:56 |
|
| Alter Ego |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 283
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany | |
|
Well, I'm handicapped when it comes to things like that. On a normal day, I have problems remembering my own name.
War does not determine who is right. Just who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Sun, 06 December 2009 15:40 |
|
|
|
I found a situation where it would be (I think) impossible to tell whether the action was exploiting this feature, or normal tactical play:
In OpenWarX, one of my teammates is a HE, and our team is playing against a SD. I have wanted to (and have seen other similar combinations) to suggest a single "kami" (HE mini colonizer hull with settlers delight engine, nothing else), paired with an early DD. Tactically, the advantage of this pairing is to provide fuel for the DD. As a side effect, if it hits a mine, only the kami is destroyed, and as we all know, kamis cost next to nothing.
So, is this completely forbidden. How about 2 DDs and a kami? How do you draw the line? Just a blanket statement by the host that "Mine Dodge Bug Forbidden" may not sufficiently define what is allowed and what is not allowed.
I would suggest that the Known Bugs list be split into 2 sections. Bugs normally forbidden and Bugs/Features normally allowed. I will follow up with this part of the discussion in the following thread:
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=440 4&start=0&rid=554&S=e80d6deddf9448612d1d7e574df9 7d9a
for this thread, we should discuss:
Can and should the "mine dodge bug" normally be allowed or disallowed?
naz
edit: paragraphing
[Updated on: Sun, 06 December 2009 15:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
