Forged Alliance Forever

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:56:22+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
I personally moved a bomber discussion into the patch forum, but nobody really cared to study the issue seriously.

As long as nobody is, nothing will change. And I'm not planning any change about it at all.

I remember you moving it there, and I appreciated that. I think it was closed shortly thereafter, though, and not totally without reason because a lot of the reasonable discussion was getting a little drowned out!

Statistics: Posted by sasin — 10 Mar 2014, 21:56

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:54:46+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
Well it will have to be tested in the next balance period, but the turning stuff is a no brainer, thanks

Not that i doubt you but it begs the question, "why hasn't this been done before?"

Resin

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 10 Mar 2014, 21:54

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:52:37+02:00

Well it will have to be tested in the next balance period, but the turning stuff is a no brainer, thanks

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 10 Mar 2014, 21:52

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:45:36+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
I personally moved a bomber discussion into the patch forum, but nobody really cared to study the issue seriously.

As long as nobody is, nothing will change. And I'm not planning any change about it at all.

Z_P,

Just sent you my most recent update... beyond addressing the hover-bombing issue, it address some of the performance problems inherent to all T1 bombers. Managed effect a 20 - 40% attack speed improvement without altering the units stats / econ or scripts. I'm hoping that this will allow 1st bomber to be seen as viable without resorting to hover-bombing.

Cheers!

Resin

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 10 Mar 2014, 21:45

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:36:15+02:00

I personally moved a bomber discussion into the patch forum, but nobody really cared to study the issue seriously.

As long as nobody is, nothing will change. And I'm not planning any change about it at all.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 10 Mar 2014, 21:36

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:26:30+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
For the last year, the issues was never raised once in a balance period patch.

So no, it won't be "fixed" because the community as a whole doesn't find it "broken".

It's fine, I'm not trying to be critical. Although, to be fair, I believe in the last balance patch feedback on anything not listed in zock's proposal was not solicited and was in fact not allowed, right? And, the one before that was specifically about buffing aeon t2, and other changes weren't allowed?

Either way, my first exposure to the issue was the really, really long recent thread, which occured during the latter part of the balance patch and was outside the scope. I'm not complaining that it hasn't been "fixed", I'm complaining that people ignored the good points made.

Not an attack on you zep, you're doing great!

Statistics: Posted by sasin — 10 Mar 2014, 21:26

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T21:02:22+02:00

For the last year, the issues was never raised once in a balance period patch.

So no, it won't be "fixed" because the community as a whole doesn't find it "broken".

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 10 Mar 2014, 21:02

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-10T20:57:37+02:00

Resin_Smoker wrote:
My point is that rather than argue, folks need to be working on what they'd like to see as a compromise.

It's 100% within the realm of possibility to remove hover bombing and yet still have a viable first strike option. I know how to do this; however thus far it appears as if folks are more concerned about being right then they are doing the right thing.

Resin

Just thinking about the multi-bombing issue. What would happen if we reduced the hovering decent delay? That way, spamming the 'S' key would effectively tell the bomber to land (which is the normal VTOL behaviour for this aircraft). Which would result in the bomber needing to climb to altitude again when given another attack command. Increasing it's exposure to AA fire. This combined with a slower deceleration rate when stopping would give a more realistic flight behaviour.

The problem with removing multi-bombing altogether is that the plane is simply not as effective in it's conventional role. Meaning that to gain reasonable return on it's cost, players need to resort to such micro-intensive methods. I think that an attempt at reducing multi-bombing must be accompanied with improvements to the turning physics for the aircraft. It would go a long way toward allaying peoples concerns if the capability of the aircraft were to be preserved. It would shift the game focus to the macro-game, which, I see as beneficial. It could extend the utility of this aircraft into later parts of the game.

I believe that this is exactly what those who would like to see multibomber removed are advocating for. In the long thread, there was several posts laying out several reasons why double dropping is inconsistent with the rest of the game mechanics, is unfriendly to newer players, and generally unintuitive. They generally were drowned out by those arguing about whether or not the strategy is OP.

In a few of them, people advocated specifically for a more maneuverable bomber that can be more effective without double dropping. Micro could consist of setting up a nice group of targets that the bomber would be able to fly to efficiently and reload in time to get off its payload. It'd be interesting, unique micro that fits in much better with the units character.

Ideally, this would allow early bombers to still be viable.

Resin, I see this as working towards a solution that pleases all, but I feel like those who don't want it changed aren't interested in any compromise because they just want everything to stay exactly the same...

Statistics: Posted by sasin — 10 Mar 2014, 20:57

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-08T22:28:42+02:00

My point is that rather than argue, folks need to be working on what they'd like to see as a compromise.

It's 100% within the realm of possibility to remove hover bombing and yet still have a viable first strike option. I know how to do this; however thus far it appears as if folks are more concerned about being right then they are doing the right thing.

Resin

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 08 Mar 2014, 22:28

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-08T20:27:21+02:00

Resin's point is that even those who support hoverbombing don't really think that First Bomber is a good strategy most of the time, and when it IS good, it's too good, or irritatingly good in the least. Even the supporters might like to see a more rounded early bomber. People like strategic choice to be available, but this one is in an odd place at present :/

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 08 Mar 2014, 20:27

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-08T20:16:26+02:00

Resin_Smoker wrote:
3) I've already offered to work with folks from both sides of the issue but this far only those wanting a ban have really chimed in.

I agree with everything else, but what do you expect of people that want to keep it in? In their eyes, they are done. There isn't anything to really 'work on'

The way I see it, there are really only two options at the end of the day -keep it or sweep it. Where in a 'keep it' dominated environment so...

Now we can lower the barriers to the 'tactic' with the toggle bomber and general changes to the unit but again no input is really needed. Anything that makes hover bombing easier (to remove the skill disparity) would suffice.

I hope this isn't coming off the wrong way. I genuinely don't know what you're looking for. As someone with rudimentary understanding of how the game works internally, I can't really say 'do X and it's fixed'. But I know you do know things within said realm of knowledge and would likely have better judgement than most on what tweaks are possible and their implications.

So do you know of anything that would lower/remove the skill barrier for the hover bombing?
(Hell, if you want to just secretly remove it in a patch somehow, I wouldn't complain...)

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 08 Mar 2014, 20:16

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-08T18:32:30+02:00

There are a few things people are forgetting here...

1) Glitches are NOT within the original spirit or vision of the game and this should not be treated as such. If folks want to keep them that's fine. Just limit the type of matches and rank with which it's allowed.

2) The world does not revolve around the top 1% of players so to tailor the game to the needs of a select few creates a system where new players will always be at a huge disadvantage.

3) I've already offered to work with folks from both sides of the issue but this far only those wanting a ban have really chimed in.

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 08 Mar 2014, 18:32

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-08T15:17:51+02:00

I'd like to take things in a slightly different direction.

ColShep seemed to be saying that Multibombing is tolerated because it specifically addresses some issues with air combat in SCFA. I assuming that he's NOT saying that these sorts of micro/engine tricks are a good idea in general, and should be formalised as proper features in future sequels/patches.

What do people think about micro tricks as formal feature? For example, I think it's well accepted that dodging bullets/arty with zigzag movements is a legitimate feature. Overcharge is an example of a formalised micro feature. What about shift-clicking reclaim being faster than auto-reclaim? I don't recall too many complaints about it, despite it being pretty much a bug.

What do you think about a design that adds these sorts of elements to most parts of the game? I once said, "Attention is the only limited resource in SupCom", so micro tricks are a way to trade attention for some sort of advantage.

I'm guessing everyone will have their own take on this. Personally, I am in favour of micro tricks that feel plausible (eg. you can manually turn units to face the enemy, and they will take less damage due to stronger frontal armour) rather than weird and buggy (offmapping aircraft breaking target lock.)

As for multibombing, I guess SupCom aircraft can kinda hover anyways (when they land/take off), so it doesnt strike me as too implausible to hover-bomb. But I'd be happier if it was a feature with proper UI support and mechanics in place, rather than as a glitch technique.

I guess there's also the other point of view, that loves emergent gameplay and glitch features, and would view a formal feature as a negative. I suppose that sort of person would prefer that the sequel fix all existing glitches, but give a whole set of new glitches to discover

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 08 Mar 2014, 15:17

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-06T18:59:05+02:00

To avoid making this into a bomber thread, check out "not another bomber thread" in the mod threads. You can follow all the changes to the mod there.

Sorry I didn't make it a hyperlink, I'm on my phone. Haven't been home in a coupe days...

Statistics: Posted by rockoe10 — 06 Mar 2014, 18:59

Re: When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

2014-03-06T18:47:59+02:00

Resin_Smoker wrote:
Yes, decreasing the allotted time an aircraft has before landing would have an impact. The amount of time a player would have to reissue a command would be reduced somewhat, possibly making it more difficult to multibomb but not impossible.

Side note: I uploaded v0.3 of my hover_bomber fix last night, I've added a 1 second delay before a weapon can be re-enabled but only for air units with bombs. I could add the above time to land change into v0.4 to further compound the effect.

Resin

It would be interesting to see what you come up with. Have you tried altering the turning physics to improve the turn times and targeting agility?

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 06 Mar 2014, 18:47