When thinking about exploits/engine tricks

[AdmiralZeech]

Exploits/Engine tricks are often controversial, but I havent seen this particular argument made that often so I thought I'd mention it.

If the game shipped without this exploit/bug/trick, and someone posted a suggestion, "Hey guys, what if we patched this engine trick in? You could do X and Y and it will be skillful and awesome!" Would you agree with the poster? Or not?

Or alternatively, "I'm designing the sequel - do I implement this bug in the sequel?"

Flipping the situation around sometimes helps because people are often biased towards the status quo.

- Sometimes exploits/engine tricks are good for gameplay. Sometimes not.
- Just because something is a bug/exploit doesnt mean you automatically have to get rid of it. But sometimes you do.
- If you think about it from the perspective of "What if the game shipped without this exploit, would we want to patch it in?", usually what you'll decide is a "nicer" properly designed version of the exploit.

egs.
* "Yes, I'd patch it in"
- Comboing in Street Fighter 2.
- Bunny jumping in Quake.

* "No, I wouldn't patch it in"
- Guile "magic throw" in SF2.
- Being able to prevent your opponent from selecting his unit in Starcraft by flying your terran structure over it.

For people that play fighting games, its interesting to read about SF2's glitches and see the various bugs that became formal mechanics in later FGs:
http://combovid.com/?p=1450
Jump cancel, chain combos, red hadouken


Anyways, something to think about next time bomber multi-dropping or whatever is discussed

[rockoe10]

Nicely put. This is what alot of game designers go through when game testing.

+1

[IceDreamer]

That's a fabulous point, well made.

[ColonelSheppard]

It's yet again a rethorical arguement and no actual important point.

[errorblankfield]

Nicely put. This is what alot of game designers go through when game testing.

+1

That's a fabulous point, well made.

It's yet again a rethorical arguement and no actual important point.

Ladies and gentlemen, ColonelSheppard!

Sticking to his views since 1758, and ignoring anything outside of them.

[RK4000]

Last time I checked that wasn't a crime, everyone can have their opinion

And since none of these features actually break the gameplay, I think it's beautiful how it's possible to make creative use of what FA's engine and controls etc have to give you to make epic things, WITHOUT breaking gameplay... it's quite awesome that a game can do this, mostly exploits break the game by being hideously OP, etc, but not in FA, at least not the current ones (engy reclime, bomber micro, etc)

[AdmiralZeech]

It's yet again a rethorical arguement and no actual important point.

It's a way of thinking about the problem, possibly different to your own. Thinking about problems in a variety of ways is a useful thing.

No need to be defensive - I'm not trying to subtly attack whatever exploit/engine trick you like.

There's another school of thought that values emergent gameplay precisely because they are unplanned. Being able to break the game and do interesting stuff is cool in its own way, and it wouldn't be the same in the sequel if the trick was deliberately designed in.

[ColonelSheppard]

I know that you are rational Zeech but you are feeding like half a dozen (low level) players here that just jumped onto this train by chance, because they got ownd by it once. And they take everything they can get, as they dont have an actual argument. What they also don't realise is removing micro and buffing bombers would hardly make things better, it would remove the possibility of first air and buff second air, right after it seems that the second air meta finally has come to a close.

So yes i would instantly implement the bombermicro mechanic into a new game. Yet i do consider it, like i said, more a rethorical question than an actual point, since if there would be a new game, air would probably be implemented in a totally different way overall.

[errorblankfield]

I believe this is my turn to yell at you for turning this into other bomber thread.

That is the game we play right? When you don't like what someone says you shut them down instead of hearing them out. You assume things about their argument -like that there are only 5 people that agree with them, they are all of low rank, and clearly have no game sense. Why bother listening to them? They are just spewing nonsense after all.

Even if they were to bring up a valid concern, the status quo must be conserved above all. So ignore them. Divert attention elsewhere. Make the mere notion of disagreeing with you equivalent to be a moron. Someone to be ignored. Mute them.

That is the way to get your point across.

So shame on you for turning this into another bomber thread. It's been talked to death already and your side is clearly wrong for reasons.
.
.
.

I do apologize for posting this. But quite frankly you, Shep, do this every fricken time someone disagrees with you and I'm getting sick of it. You'll saunter into a discussion, make a vague post about how someone disagreeing with something you believe is stupid/wrong. You leave, and a lot of discussion erupts in your wake. Just when everything is settling down and we are coming to an understanding... You waltz back in, take the last thing stated, tear is apart with old arguments and plea for everyone to agree with you in your dismal of that position. All the while adding nothing new to the conversation -just repeating what was already settled before. And worst part is, it works. People stop talking about it. And forward momentum ceases to exist. You can't move forward with some guy just dredging up the past every five seconds.

You single handedly end the conversation and prevent change from occurring.

But that's what you want after all. Be damned if the community would want to take this in another direction (or hell, even EXPLORE another direction).

[Wakke]

+1 to OP. I was saying the exact same thing earlier in the bomber thread.

+1 to errorblankfield

For what it's worth...