| Some "bugs" should be taken out of the list? |
Mon, 30 November 2009 11:25  |
|
 Bukane |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 33
Registered: November 2005 | |
|
Hi,
I usually see new game announcements allowing this:
Chaff
Split fleets
Repair after gating loophole
Now... In most forum topics, the existence of chaff is taken for granted. Splitting fleets is very common, I do it every turn even without thinking about dodging. And after gating, one quite often wants to merge a fleet with an overcloaker, or some SFX to repair a bit, or whatever.
Shouldn't these "bugs" be in a section "known exploitable features" or so? Just wondering.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some "bugs" should be taken out of the list? |
Sun, 06 December 2009 15:54  |
|
|
|
I think the list should be divided into 2 sections:
1. Bugs, normally disallowed
2. Features/Bugs normally allowed.
In particular, the "mine dodge bug":
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=424 1&rid=554&S=e80d6deddf9448612d1d7e574df97d9a&pl_ view=&start=40#msg_44604
would be difficult to disallow. There are many tactical situations where you may want to pair a sweeper with another fleet. Defining the difference between allowable and non-allowable play may be difficult.
Similarly, there are other reasons to merge with a planet cover after gating, such as hiding a fleet from pen scanners so it can't be targeted.
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=426 7&start=0&rid=554&S=e80d6deddf9448612d1d7e574df9 7d9a
I would propose the Bug/Features normally allowed would include:
1. chaff
2. split fleet dodge
3. repair after gating
4. mine dodge feature
The advantage to this would:
1. make policing #3 and #4 much more practical.
2. serve to educate the community more about using #3 and #4.
3. even the playing field, as many players use #3 and #4 in games even if specifically not allowed, especially since they have been added so recently to the bugs list.
If we do not do this, then I would suggest *every* game announcement needs to discuss #3 and #4 thoroughly, so that all players are equally aware of the rules.
naz
edit: added repair after gating url
[Updated on: Sun, 06 December 2009 15:58] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some "bugs" should be taken out of the list? |
Tue, 08 December 2009 00:20 |
|
|
|
I'd add the ISB trumps IT gate scanning bug to that list too.
On a related note perhaps some of these might be fixed(ie patched) by PaulCr or m.a@stars? Stars jRCfan?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some "bugs" should be taken out of the list? |
Wed, 09 December 2009 01:55 |
|
|
|
| vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 07 December 2009 11:02 |
PS - Is there a Littlecanuknaz?
|
Three actually. one does not do much computers (and she would be quite offended (or maybe amused) to be called "littlecanuknaz"...) One is "bcjr". The last is "racquetman" because he is a badminton player.
So 3, but only 1 has an online name derived from mine...
naz (proud dad)
[Updated on: Wed, 09 December 2009 01:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Some "bugs" should be taken out of the list? |
Tue, 30 March 2010 18:17 |
|
|
|
Is there anyone opposed to the changing of the standard cheats disclaimer to allow:
1. chaff,
2. split fleet dodge,
3. repair after gating, and
4. mine damage dodge?
We have only had those in favour voice their opinion so far.
naz
edit: typos, reword question to make it more clear.
[Updated on: Tue, 30 March 2010 18:21] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
