Jump to content
MDF

List of quasi-exploits

Recommended Posts

You may be surprised to know that that entire statement is mistaken, and has occurred with regularity in most TGIF (and other public games) games in the last few years. Some things are hard to notice unless you look for them, however once discovered stick out like a sore thumb. The AAR has been the undoing of many of these folks.

...

Others wont stop, or protest their innocence, or worse of all, flaunt their behavior with continued exploiting, along with snide comments, avatars depicting the behavior or other acts of childishness, in the belief their is no recourse.

I've only been playing online since ~June 2013, and yes, I admit that I'm surprised to hear of the regular misconduct to which you are alluding (as well as the snide remarks, avatars, etc.) The only arguable QEs I'm aware of are the Apache/transport helo abuse and the submerged-infantry thing. Can you give me some examples of other stuff (without naming names)?

I usually hang around for a while in the post-TGIF chat, and I don't recall people discussing anything else apart from the things I mentioned. Obviously, I don't know what's being said via private channels. But there hasn't been much in the way of public outcry -- which, IMO, there should be in order to clearly delineate what's acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for the longest time we avoided getting down and dirty with this issue. We simply let people do whatever they wanted, because the hope was that everyone would behave like honorable opponents and we also just don't want to cause problems in the community. That said, that time is now over, and rules are being put in place and will be enforced. This is because it is has simply because more exhausting to ignore the behavior, and the fact that it ruins the experience for everyone else. No more will those people be tolerated who just get kicks out of pissing others off.

Well, I am completely out of the loop on the scuttlebut around here, apparently. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give me some examples of other stuff (without naming names)?

I would rather not. Things have been done, they were noticed, dealt with in the manner Volcano described and the matters are at end.

Mog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for the longest time we avoided getting down and dirty with this issue. We simply let people do whatever they wanted, because the hope was that everyone would behave like honorable opponents and we also just don't want to cause problems in the community. That said, that time is now over, and rules are being put in place and will be enforced. This is because it is has simply because more exhausting to ignore the behavior, and the fact that it ruins the experience for everyone else. No more will those people be tolerated who just get kicks out of pissing others off.

How do you punish people? Well, first is a warning, then a week long ban from SB.com teamspeak server for minor offenses, major ones would be a month. If it continues, the ban becomes a month, then 6 months, then a year, then permanent.

The thing about all of this is that we, as people, usually all operate as a group. Usually there is one bad apple and then everyone else just ignores that person, but often there will be a virtual unit who said problem child is a member of, then they facility him. If that can be proven then it will turn into a group punish, then VU channels nuked, etc. I am all about group punishment if required (thanks to the army).

So really, punishment is not difficult, and it will escalate as necessary. Not to mention, I am online nearly 24/7 and I will go out of my way to wage war if someone wants to, 7 days a week if I must. I look at it like taking out the garbage, or keeping the community pool clean, or some similar analogy.

Totally agree with your statement.

But would raise the point what constitutes an offence .

There is of course the well known breeches.

And there are some that could be considered not in the spirit of the game.

I.e. blocking bridges In the real world its a legitimate delaying/ambush tactic

But is considered unsporting in a SB, MP mission.

I suggested it one night in a SVU mission. Completely unaware it was a no no.

With experienced SB Players. and duly got reprimanded by my own side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once we have the ability to push vehicles off bridges with tank blades or eng afv's equipped with such devices, then I say it's a option to render the bridge un-pass-able till removed.

Having the mission equipped with such tools is a must before we can place those real life blocks in the sim.:c:

For now it not advisable to do it in mp.:gun:

My 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree with your statement.

But would raise the point what constitutes an offence .

There is of course the well known breeches.

And there are some that could be considered not in the spirit of the game.

I.e. blocking bridges In the real world its a legitimate delaying/ambush tactic

But is considered unsporting in a SB, MP mission.

I suggested it one night in a SVU mission. Completely unaware it was a no no.

With experienced SB Players. and duly got reprimanded by my own side

The offenses have been defined in the SB.com community rules thread. I guess you haven't been reading the multiplayer forum. :clin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blocking a bridge in the real world maybe considered "legitimate" because in the real world you as the person encountering such an obstacle can do things about it.

In SB having a map bisected by a river, with say two bridges as the only crossing points, then blocking those bridges with your own vehicles, then destroying those vehicles via fratricide to deny the two crossing points, whilst possible, certainly isn't within the spirit of the game.

possible <> right

Hence why such maps aren't around much anymore or there are now numerous fords to reduce the value of the bridges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blocking a bridge in the real world maybe considered "legitimate" because in the real world you as the person encountering such an obstacle can do things about it.

In SB having a map bisected by a river, with say two bridges as the only crossing points, then blocking those bridges with your own vehicles, then destroying those vehicles via fratricide to deny the two crossing points, whilst possible, certainly isn't within the spirit of the game.

possible <> right

Hence why such maps aren't around much anymore or there are now numerous fords to reduce the value of the bridges.

I agree in principle

It was not in the spirit of the game.

I was relatively new to MP at the time and did not know that it was considered unsporting. Even taking out the lead enemy vehicle as its crossing the bridge again a practiced tactic In real life.

Even though it is possible to ram all but the heaviest vehicle off a bridge in SB.

(Not directed at anybody,)

But Who would not want to recreate Whitman's tactical triumph in Villers-Bocage catching a Column to close together on a narrow road.

Or would that be considered unsporting. LoL

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree in principle

It was not in the spirit off the game.

I was relatively new to MP at the time and did not know that it was considered unsporting. Even taking out the lead enemy vehicle as its crossing the bridge again a practiced tactic In real life.

Even though it is possible to ram all but the heaviest vehicle off a bridge in SB.

(Not directed at anybody,)

But Who would not want to recreate Whitman's tactical triumph in Villers-Bocage catching a Column to close together on a narrow road.

Or would that be considered unsporting. LoL

Yes, but the proper (honorable) way to deny the enemy a bridge crossing in a wargame is the defend the bridge with direct and indirect fire, not park your own vehicles on the bridge and then kill them. Trying to kill the enemy on a bridge is a good thing, especially since it gives them an actual chance to cross the bridge. This is opposed to leisurely and neatly parking own vehicles on the bridge blocking all lanes, then committing fratricide, all in the name of making the bridge impassible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a complete MP virgin (I've been spending far too much time honing my mission design skills) I have some possibly naive questions/statements.

Using transport helicopters as an orbital satellite around friendlies, to spot enemy on the map

Am I right in assuming that it's OK to do this with UAVs if available?

Not cheating but rather an un-ortodox way of doing things...

Is it OK to introduce what I believe are new tactics and realistic but unorthodox uses of weapons to simulate a fight between two technologically equal foes?

Humwees - GPS killers...

Aslav-25 He came up with a way of using the HE rounds as mobile Artillery.

The funny thing is that he got really good at it and was able to deliver targeted shot long distance...

These seem more like skills than anything :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These seem more like skills than anything :-)

True, that is how I feel about that -- just close your GPS doors, and there is nothing wrong with shooting out someone's GPS. I guess the problem people have is when someone decides that the HMMWV is sacrificial, so they charge out to try to shoot a track off a tank or shoot out the GPS as they die. That behavior is just cheesy, but of it usually isn't a problem if the target is alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Not directed at anybody,)

But Who would not want to recreate Whitman's tactical triumph in Villers-Bocage catching a Column to close together on a narrow road.

Or would that be considered unsporting. LoL

We aren't talking about that.

I think you missed one key difference.

Whitmann the tank driver (as opposed to Whitman the poet :)) destroyed BRITISH vehicles at either end of the column and then destroyed the remaining blocked BRITISH vehicles.

What we are referring to is driving a GERMAN tank of halftrack in to block both ends, then destroying the GERMAN vehicles with your Tiger and then moving on to destroy the trapped BRITISH vehicles.

Would you volunteer to drive one of the halftracks? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, that is how I feel about that -- just close your GPS doors, and there is nothing wrong with shooting out someone's GPS. I guess the problem people have is when someone decides that the HMMWV is sacrificial, so they charge out to try to shoot a track off a tank or shoot out the GPS as they die. That behavior is just cheesy, but of it usually isn't a problem if the target is alert.

Hmmm...YOU maybe onto something big here...write a letter to the Taliban ,...explain that their tactics are just plain cheesy...end global terrorism. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the Battle of France, May 1940, in order to slow german progression, damaged and destroyed tanks were put on bridges, damaged B1bis fighting to the death:

If your tank is not running, be a bunker.

If your gun is out of ammo, be a road Block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but fully functioning tanks weren't driven onto the bridge and shot in the ar*e by their countrymen were they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the real problem with using your own vehicles as roadblocks the fact that, unlike real life, the SB simulation engine will not let you push the hulk out of the way? Or have recent upgrades changed this?

And, incidentally, the mission designer can penalize the behavior, at least in missions where friendlies have no reason to be on the bridge:

Condition "penalty" is true if:

[destroyed] [friendly] [AFVs] in [region "bridge"] [>] [0]

OR

[immobilized] [friendly] [AFVs] in [region "bridge"] [>] [0]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't the real problem with using your own vehicles as roadblocks the fact that, unlike real life, the SB simulation engine will not let you push the hulk out of the way? Or have recent upgrades changed this?

And, incidentally, the mission designer can penalize the behavior, at least in missions where friendlies have no reason to be on the bridge:

Condition "penalty" is true if:

[destroyed] [friendly] [AFVs] in [region "bridge"] [>] [0]

OR

[immobilized] [friendly] [AFVs] in [region "bridge"] [>] [0]

You can nudge them out of the way if your in a heavier vehicle.

I have done it a few times, it also a good way of freeing a vehicle if its stuck in a wall or building.

But don't take a run at the trapped vehicle it will damage yours, just nudge it

Ideally if all vehicles had the ability to tow it would solve a lot of issues.

Most RW tanks have towing cables fitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother destroying the vehicles if their intention is to use them as roadblocks? It seems that's an unnecessary step, all that's required is to park them and give them stay orders to do the same thing. Maybe the one difference is the other side can still score more points for getting the kills if they aren't scuttled first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why bother destroying the vehicles if their intention is to use them as roadblocks? It seems that's an unnecessary step, all that's required is to park them and give them stay orders to do the same thing. Maybe the one difference is the other side can still score more points for getting the kills if they aren't scuttled first.

The penalty logic I set out easily can be augmented to penalize for having operational friendlies on a bridge (maybe with an additional parameter of being on the bridge for more than a specified period of time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can nudge them out of the way if your in a heavier vehicle.

I have done it a few times, it also a good way of freeing a vehicle if its stuck in a wall or building.

But don't take a run at the trapped vehicle it will damage yours, just nudge it

Ideally if all vehicles had the ability to tow it would solve a lot of issues.

Most RW tanks have towing cables fitted.

Not to mention that, IRL, MBTs could probably just run over humvees or other light vehicles used for blocking purposes. Not possible with the SB engine at the moment.

Edited by MDF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The penalty logic I set out easily can be augmented to penalize for having operational friendlies on a bridge (maybe with an additional parameter of being on the bridge for more than a specified period of time).

I guess I still don't see the point- if for example a penalty slowly destroys the vehicles anyway, then it seems redundant to kill your own.

If a penalty zone doesn't kill them immediately, you could do the same thing just parking them- at least they could still fight back or even distract an opponent and act as shot magnets until they are destroyed.

If I were to play MP and use what would be considered a cheap exploit, I would prefer to just park them and force the other side to deal with live roadblocks. The self destroying doesn't seem to actually add anything to the roadblock as far as I can tell.

Historically, I could see the point of destroying them before they fall into the hands of the enemy- but that's beyond the scope of Steal Beasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, this roadblock 'exploit' is something that probably ruins gameplay purposes for making a game 'unfair' or un-winnable for one side- but not something that would be illogical or unsound in a real life battle.

This is an issue that isn't necessarily unrealistic but it isn't necessarily fun, either- unlike other exploits which might actually be preposterous in that they don't practically correlate to anything in real life, it's not inconceivable a state like Iraq or North Korea would attempt something like that to block a superior force for a few hours or a few days. It's just that for the purposes of entertainment, you don't have a few hours or a few days to spend trying to clear or go around the obstacle, the battle has to be resolved sooner, so while it's unfair for one side in that respect, it's not necessarily 'wrong.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
something that probably ruins gameplay purposes for making a game 'unfair' or un-winnable for one side

Damn, nobody's going to like the operation I'm working on right now :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't the real problem with using your own vehicles as roadblocks the fact that, unlike real life, the SB simulation engine will not let you push the hulk out of the way?

Yes, but it is complicated. Say the enemy parks some of their own trucks on a bridge and kills them. The first stupid thing is the enemy sacrificing the unit, because he has selectively decided that his trucks are not needed in the scenario. You (the opposing side) now drive up with your tank to push it because you need to cross to take an enemy objective to win. In the real world, an MBT would just smash through a truck parked on a bridge at full speed like a bowling ball flying through a glass window, but currently in SB all you can do is nudge it. So, you get to the truck and start nudging it forward. While you are doing this you are slow, and so will likely die by the one enemy or missile vehicle that was devoted with covering the bridge and then DONE. No more crossing the bridge unless you bring up a recovery vehicle to tow away the dead one.

That recovery vehicle gets killed in that process and so forth, and once vehicles stack up then you cannot effectively nudge them all so you can start to figure out why this is underhanded. Like I said, *in all fairness to the shortcomings of the sim* defend a bridge with direct and indirect fire. Kill the ENEMY on the bridge and then have their vehicles block it. It is just good form and it avoids pissing everyone off. It is already hard enough so why piss in people's faces in some attempt to guarantee a victory? It's just cheesy.

Edited by Volcano
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of that, all this reality vs. gameplay brings to mind...

We have to separate real world situations with the good sportsmanship that a wargame with limitations requires. This is the age old argument: there are those that look purely at what is literally possible, and what some fringe case might exist in real life, and there are those who understand that we are playing a wargame, and like all wargames, it has flaws and limitations so you voluntarily decide to operate within a set of boundaries to be a "good sport".

At the end of the day, this is a game and we have to live with each other as a community, so THIS is why you don't want to piss people off. In real war there are no rules, you do what you have to do for survival and to win. Burn out your own vehicles to block roads and bridges? Sure, if you have to do it in real life, then so be it. However, SB TGIF is not real war, you will live, and you have to return to the same people to fight again next week. The vexing thing in all this is that the reason you avoid pissing people off is so they don't hate your guts and not want to play with you anymore. I just don't understand why some people in every community cannot understand this -- it is in their own interest not to be a sore loser and/or a bad sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×