Why?

[Turinturambar]

there is another easy fix.
accept thats its a consequence of supcom being a simulation. Same as blocking unitmovement with placing a building.

[---]

Comparing getting blocked by a started building with blocking a TML with a started building - sure, you can do that. Is it an actual equal and fair comparison?
No.

Reason? Mass invested in TML != mass invested in moving ACU.

But if you want to "accept" rather than "fix" - sure.
It's lovely to see the mental gymnastics some provide here. Everyone has their own ultimate reason, ranging from "attention", "intention" to "simulation".

Dare I ask you why the Yolona Oss block is no longer possible?
I suppose you would have preferred if it stayed like that? For it is a simulation?

[Turinturambar]

wtf. do you not realise that your acu movement being blocked can easily kill/safe you?
which is 3904193482 times more imported than useless 250 mass of a tml missle. plus it only rly happens on the generic teamgamemaps, where people have hours of time with nothing better to do anyway and that dont have much depth to beginn with.

[Louvegarde]

I cannot fathom how we manage to have these conversations bimonthly, someone needs to start a FAQ.

It's beyond me how you manage to sound like a d*** with every single response of yours. Lovely chap
Is it really too much for you to act in a civil manner? Like, just once?

Those exploits are exploits because they were not the intended outcomes of the mechanic's design [...]
The missile is technically doing as intended, it's colliding with an enemy object and dealing its damage to that object. Despite that object only having 1hp to lose, or said object not being the targeted one, it's still the outcome as intended by the original developers.

Same flawed, self-righteous argument I heard last time.
Unless you can provide an actual developer's words, or find some lines of comment in the game that it was intended to block a TML with a t1 1 HP radar I suggest you drop this shallow "argument". According to your logic most of the patches violate the intention of the developers.

There is a very easy fix to it: make it an exploit.

No, I think biass is right here.

First off he's not talking like a jerk at all, what he says is true. Those questions come back every two weeks. Someone does need to make a FAQ. I must say I was expecting his post to contain some level of dissing, but no, it's not even the case. He answered like anyone would have.

Secondary, that argument about developer's words is entirely false. You don't need an explicit signed declaration from the original lead game designer to assert that the intentions were this or that. Just like we don't need shakespeare's detailed explanation of each of his texts to assert what the messages and intentions behind his writings are. That's what good writing is. Same goes for game design.

So you could say that the intention maybe wasn't to have the players fast build factories to block players or fast build radars to block TMLs. But at the same time, Supcom has pretty big sandbox intentions, more than other RTSes. How many RTSes do you know have a physic system simulating every single projectile and shit to collide between each other ? Compare with age of empires III, came out not so long before supcom, triple A RTS, cannonballs and shit - and yet no physic system at all. Everything animated. Why do you think Supcom didn't do the same ?

This physic system is there for a reason - create emergent strategies from the systemic rules that inherit from the fact that "every single shit collides with other shit". That means bloking nukes with ASF. That means building factories around your opponent to prevent him from escaping. As far as I can see, it's all in the base intentions of the game.

The fact that everything collides and physicses is here to extend the possible strategies, to invite players to find this kind of tricks and use them to win the game and surprise the opponent. Each time we blacklist one of those strategies, we lose a bit of depth, and we contradict the gamemaker's intentions.

[---]

wtf. do you not realise that your acu movement being blocked can easily kill/safe you?
which is 3904193482 times more imported than useless 250 mass of a tml missle. plus it only rly happens on the generic teamgamemaps, where people have hours of time with nothing better to do anyway and that dont have much depth to beginn with.

ACU getting killed was not the argument. I think you lose track of the actual issue, so imo this point is moot.
Same with the maps. You bring up points which are irrelevant for the mentioned issue.

[Turinturambar]

if you look at the problm the only reasonable approach is to compare the results.
in case of tml blocking its misslecost (plus investment into the tml) vs cost of starting the structure.
you can just saying moving an acu costs 0 mass therefore it is not comparable to the tml which does cost mass. because what you lose for being blocked is either the acu (gameover) acu hp (which you could assign a massvalue, since it has less fightingpower aftr losing hp) or a unit (since you can also block any other non exp/air unit this way...) which obv does have a mass value.

the comparison with the yolo falls flat, because of 2 reasons
a) significance. blocking a yolo means blocking a gameender (of a single faction) opposed to one strategic option (tml). a yolo being blocked can end the game, whereas a tml being blocked only gives a small disadvantage.
b) if he a ctrked satelite blockes the yolomissle it destroys the entire base with the yolo, which just breaks the gamebalance in that specific case. in case of the tml the game doesnt immediatly end (destroying your entire base etc etc) when being blocked once.

[---]

First off he's not talking like a jerk at all, what he says is true. Those questions come back every two weeks. Someone does need to make a FAQ. I must say I was expecting his post to contain some level of dissing, but no, it's not even the case. He answered like anyone would have.

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. If you think a passive aggressive entrance like that is normal - fine. I disagree.

Secondary, that argument about developer's words is entirely false. You don't need an explicit signed declaration from the original lead game designer to assert that the intentions were this or that. Just like we don't need shakespeare's detailed explanation of each of his texts to assert what the messages and intentions behind his writings are. That's what good writing is. Same goes for game design.

I could not disagree more. You claim to know what the author of a game/literary piece wanted to say with the work - which factually you do not know.
If you want to go deeper into this topic, I suggest you have a look at e.g. the classic "The Death of the author" by Roland Barthes (1967).

So you could say that the intention maybe wasn't to have the players fast build factories to block players or fast build radars to block TMLs. But at the same time, Supcom has pretty big sandbox intentions, more than other RTSes. How many RTSes do you know have a physic system simulating every single projectile and shit to collide between each other ? Compare with age of empires III, came out not so long before supcom, triple A RTS, cannonballs and shit - and yet no physic system at all. Everything animated. Why do you think Supcom didn't do the same ?

There are several reasons, and I only can assume for, unlike you, I will not claim to know the intention behind the developers' actions. Maybe they didnt know hot to handle exceptions. Maybe they had no time. I only can assume. I can affirm tho that imo what is done with TML is illogical and unfair.
To say "it's a simulation so it all should be possible" is very easily countered with the removed block of the Yolona Oss.
Would you want to have a scout plane block a Yolona Oss or normal nuke and not affect anything below the plane? Would that make sense? Is that reasonable? Would a lost game bc of that be ok with you?

This physic system is there for a reason - create emergent strategies from the systemic rules that inherit from the fact that "every single shit collides with other shit". That means bloking nukes with ASF. That means building factories around your opponent to prevent him from escaping. As far as I can see, it's all in the base intentions of the game.

Ok, at least you are consistent with your argument. So you mean to say blocking nukes with ASF was the intention of the developers. Ok. It makes very little sense to me, and renders the removed Yolo block a direct contradiction of what the developers intended?[/quote]

I understand the simulations are meant to allow for collisions but not every collision imo should be considered "normal" just bc it is "possible".

The fact that everything collides and physicses is here to extend the possible strategies, to invite players to find this kind of tricks and use them to win the game and surprise the opponent. Each time we blacklist one of those strategies, we lose a bit of depth, and we contradict the gamemaker's intentions.

Once again, your main argument boils down to: "it is possible, hence it is good". I just disagree with that.
Can you accept that?

[biass]

It's beyond me how you manage to sound like a d*** with every single response of yours. Lovely chap
Is it really too much for you to act in a civil manner? Like, just once?

I was pointing out an issue and proposed a solution, this is just a personal attack, how you're not getting metaphorically beaten with a club by a moderator is beyond me.

Unless you can provide an actual developer's words, or find some lines of comment in the game that it was intended to block a TML with a t1 1 HP radar I suggest you drop this shallow "argument".

Developers, as in those who code the game, are not responsible for the game mechanics.
Developers, as in the teams who sit down and plan out interactions between features, and etc, are. Call these game designers if you will, but it's ultimately irrelevant.

They're not going to have types any lines of code in the game, so insinuating i should somehow jump into fa.html and find the comment saying "here is what happens when a missile hits a building with one hp" is really more absurd than suggesting they didn't accommodate this edge case.

According to your logic most of the patches violate the intention of the developers.

I'm not responsible for FAF patches, however most-if-not-all of the properties in the game still complete the purpose they were made for. The Percival was not intended to be a 9000hp unit with a 1500 damage projectile or whatever, it was intended to be a high hp assault bot with a powerful alpha strike. The numbers are just moulded to fit that purpose.

self-righteous

You're gaining quite the negative reputation of thinking yourself superior to others, and only your actions and how you communicate with others are to blame.
You won't - but heed my warning before you're forced off the platform. I'm normally against banning people's ability to talk but somehow i don't think many people will mind.

[---]

if you look at the problm the only reasonable approach is to compare the results.
in case of tml blocking its misslecost (plus investment into the tml) vs cost of starting the structure.
you can just saying moving an acu costs 0 mass therefore it is not comparable to the tml which does cost mass. because what you lose for being blocked is either the acu (gameover) acu hp (which you could assign a massvalue, since it has less fightingpower aftr losing hp) or a unit (since you can also block any other non exp/air unit this way...) which obv does have a mass value.

I am no sure I completely understand what you are saying, so, sorry if I give an answer to something u didn't mean to say:
The ACU block is something which usually happens on the fly, on the spot. Whereas with TML you usually scout, built, fire. It takes time, is more of a "mid term" investment (not really long term, not instantly either) and may affect your overall strategy significantly (invested mass/time limits other options). These things do not apply to a blocked ACU imo, thus I still think your comparison is not really working well.

the comparison with the yolo falls flat, because of 2 reasons
a) significance. blocking a yolo means blocking a gameender (of a single faction) opposed to one strategic option (tml). a yolo being blocked can end the game, whereas a tml being blocked only gives a small disadvantage.
b) if he a ctrked satelite blockes the yolomissle it destroys the entire base with the yolo, which just breaks the gamebalance in that specific case. in case of the tml the game doesnt immediatly end (destroying your entire base etc etc) when being blocked once.

You start adding exceptions which makes the initial claim weaker.
to a) now, what if the TML is going to hit the ACU and kill it - yet ACU stops this with a t1 radar? Your argument falls flat. Now you need another exception to the rule, I assume for this clearly is no longer a "small disadvantage"? I hope you won't argue with "hardly ever happens".
to b) I did not refer to a satellite ctrl k but just blocking the yolo with a satellite without anything happening. This was possible in the past and basically equals the block with the radar (it's worse tho, for you only need to pay attention once and then have the sat hover over the yolo).

[PhilipJFry]

blackster your entire point about tml being blocked by 0 hp buildings has been discussed many times in the past

as turin already pointed out that kind of thing usually occurs in team games where all you do is micro your engies and upgrade your mex as fast as possible -> imo that sort of blocking adds a nice amount of depth to the game in other scenarios (1v1) so it's not even a cancer tactic in all situations to begin with

your comparison to the yolo/sat blocking also seems strange since the tml blocking needs to be done with an engi (which usually has to be able to construct a fairly tall structure in the correct path between the tml and the building) while the yolo sat thing was an insanely cost effective method of causing a nuclear explosion in the center of the enemy base with no way of escaping for the seraphim player aside from not using his game ender
these two things are miles apart in terms of how "game breaking" they are and can thus not be compared that easily