Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper)
|
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Thu, 14 January 2010 06:57   |
|
|
|
| vonKreedon wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 03:00 |
Given the example, and I can think of many instances where such a fleet structure would be useful in itself in addition to the mine dodge byproduct, I think that this needs to be one of the standard allowed exploits. And I say this as a player who often plays SD.
|
That's my thought, it's a bit to easy to do it for completely innocent reasons.
That said... It does make minesweeping massively cheaper, at no additional cost in fleet numbers, and an almost trivial additional cost in chaff. I think this would make fighting a SD much much easier (1 chaff + 1 DD to go in and sweep an exploding field, instead of 5 DD)
If it's in the game description, it's easy enough to avoid... And accidental violations are easily dealt with (just have them scrap the ship that should've died, although the field is still swept by then.)
[Updated on: Thu, 14 January 2010 06:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Thu, 18 March 2010 05:59 |
|
|
|
| slimdrag00n wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 13:32 |
using frigates with Gatling guns and armor as the first ship and the 2nd ship is a DD with armor.
Only chaff and split fleet dodge were allowed. Later in the years we allowed sfx merging after gating loophole which this player also admitted to using before it was allowed. Maybe he refuses to read the Must know section I dunno.
I would like to know from the experienced players if they agree with me that the pair of ships he is using is breaking the rules. Also what is the penalty? A 1 turn ban? All ships of those two designs get deleted? Something else?
Warning?
|
Firstly, IMO the "standard disclaimer" of only split fleet & chaff needs to be changed as there are too many bugs like sfx merging that should equally be allowed because they simply occur too often naturally.
Secondly, logically he read the Must know section, or its equivalent elsewhere or he'd not know to use the bug.
Thirdly, that seems to be a very odd pair of hips to be exploiting the mine-damage dodge - gatlings are not exactly cheap and armoring the ship that's being sacrificed seems counter-intuitive to me.
Finally, as a host I tend to fairly harsh with rule breakers, imposing scrapping & turn bans of increasing length. Of course I also tend to be fairly explicit about what the rules are too (of necessity - my games usually aren't normal).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Thu, 18 March 2010 06:31 |
|
|
|
The important point is that the first ship has armor 405 and the second around 380. If this fleet hits the minefield, the first ship will take 400 damage and the second 100 (both use non-ramscoop engines).
So this case is not about sacrificing the first ship to save the second but to allow both ships to survive the hit. Obviously the player uses the knowledge of damage allocation.
The question is whether this knowledge is allowed to be used.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Thu, 18 March 2010 16:48 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| slimdrag00n wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 19:50 |
Micha;
"It's neither an abuse of the knowledge of damage allocation, if it was than using fleets of 5 ships "as usual" would be the same kind of abuse."
I am not seeing how that is the same thing when using 5 ships in same stack you don't have another ship first in the fleet to take damage so that the 5 ships take less.
|
I'll try to explain what I mean by "same kind of abuse".
Knowledge of damagae allocation = "damage done to each ship is 100dp (non ramscoop), min damage done to fleet is 500dp".
-> The person using the armoured FF and the DD in one fleet knows this and is handling this by letting the FF take 400dp and the DD take 100dp damage.
-> The person using 5 DDs knows this and is handling this by merging 5 (not 4, not 6) ships with one engine (DDs in other words) and let each DD take 100dp damage.
So if you call the first "abuse of knowledge" I say the second is the same!
| Quote: |
Wait so what your saying is its not the way it actually distributes the difference in damage, that's the exploit it is just any normal scout or frigate without armor that has not enough armor in the first place to take full amount of damage. But you are allowed to use any ship so long as it has enough armor.I think that would be 125 armor? Though it doesn't specify this in the must know section which is even more confusing.
|
Correct. The exploit is *not* using two different ship types, the exploit is using a ship in the first slot that (as you say) "has not enough armor in the fist place to take the full amount of damage". Because what you are doing by merging with a scout chaff is taking 20dp damage and letting 380dp disappear!
You are probably right that the phrase in the Must Know isn't clear enough.
In the case you mentioned the FF takes 400dp and needs to be repaired afterwards, just as the 5 DDs each taking 100dp need to be repaired. Using chaff you of course lose the chaff but you save resources because you don't have to send in 5 DDs but only one, and you can have 5 sweeping fleets instead ...
mch
[Updated on: Thu, 18 March 2010 16:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Thu, 18 March 2010 21:16 |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Micha wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 15:48 |
I'll try to explain what I mean by "same kind of abuse".
mch
|
Yea, but if you are doing it this way, where damage does not disappear, I see very little benefit for the added MM of keeping track. At least, in the normal case. You could do the same thing with 1 design, that is better engineered for smashing into minefields.
Oh, to be sure I do it on occasion in special circumstances, but for normal sweeping? No way. I can't see the value.
Am I missing something here?
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Fri, 19 March 2010 03:03 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 02:16 |
| Micha wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 15:48 |
I'll try to explain what I mean by "same kind of abuse".
mch
|
Yea, but if you are doing it this way, where damage does not disappear, I see very little benefit for the added MM of keeping track. At least, in the normal case. You could do the same thing with 1 design, that is better engineered for smashing into minefields.
Oh, to be sure I do it on occasion in special circumstances, but for normal sweeping? No way. I can't see the value.
Am I missing something here?t
|
I was not commenting on the value of the two different methods, I was not comparing to see which is "best".
paul_ik said: "Obviously the player uses the knowledge of damage allocation. The question is whether this knowledge is allowed to be used."
I was merely trying to point out that the normal use of 5 DDs is also using the knowledge of damage allocation, and if that is allowed (no abuse) than the other method (armoured FF + DD) should also be allowed.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Fri, 19 March 2010 05:04 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| iojho wrote on Fri, 19 March 2010 08:41 |
IMO, the player did it intentionally. He knew it is forbidden to use it. And despite of it, he did it.
I do not want to assess if this is a cheat or not. It is clear however that it is listed in "Known bugs" section at HWF. And in the game announcement it was stated that it is forbidden to use bugs described there. It is obvious to me, that the behavior of the player is against the GAME RULES.
|
Yeah, he probably did it intentionally, just as one would intentionally crash 5 DDs into a field instead of 1, but what he did was not forbidden. The exploit that is described in the Bug section is using a chaff to soak up +300dp and make that disappear. That is what is forbidden by the host. He is using an armored FF that takes the full 4/5 damage, that means he's not (ab)using the exploit, merely using a different approach to distribute damage over his sweeping fleet.
What is listed in the Bug section could be phrased more accurately but the essence is there and with a link to the thread in the Academy. With an armoured FF that can take 4/5 of the dp the bug/feature/chea/... is not used.
mch
[Updated on: Fri, 19 March 2010 05:05] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Tue, 30 March 2010 18:06 |
|
|
|
| bigcanuknaz wrote on 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
|
I have quoted my earlier post (back to a previous page now).
I can see where some games may want this restricted. But:
1. The normal cheats disclaimer should allow it given the complexities of restricting it.
2. If restricted, it needs to be very carefully spelled out what is allowed and what is not.
I again reference the very valid combination of a kami (bare HE mini colonizer) and an early minesweeping destroyer. It is used to get fuel from the kami. Is this allowed or not.
Ahah!!! Brainstorm!
I guess this could be disallowed simply (to enforce, but difficult to explain for newbs how to do, and difficult for player who use a lot of fleets early before chaff), by requiring kami, and chaff type ships to be the *last* in the ship list. So when you 1st make a chaff or kami, you make dummy designs until you get to the last slots, then design your chaff, kami, and maybe chaff placeholder (if you intend say to switch from scout to FF chaff), and then delete the dummy designs. Could be hard to do for a player who uses up all 16 designs for very low number specialist designs early, before he builds chaff.
naz
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Mine Damage Dodge - bug or feature? (split from: Late game minesweeper) |
Sat, 12 April 2014 07:38 |
|
| XAPBob |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 957
Registered: August 2012 | |
|
No - that reads interplayer messages if I understand it correctly.
xyligun (sp?) released SPT recently... SAH thread
Just realised, I ought to check the events.txt file to ensure completeness of the above seatch...
[Updated on: Sat, 12 April 2014 07:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 06 06:40:20 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
(not just because i'm quite partial to WM 
) 
