Jump to content

List of quasi-exploits


MDF
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moderators
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:

Not sure what this has to do what I said? I said sacrificing a HMMWV in SB to knock out a GPS is cheesy, not the act of shooting out the GPS. Again, SB is not real war.

Care to enlighten us on your opinion since you apparently disagree with the discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sorry, I meant mission score penalty, not penalty zone. (BTW, penalty zones, per se, don't use the editor control logic functionality, unfortunately. Or, if they do, someone please show me how!!!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I think the first point answer's Captain_Colossus' point just above. It's not merely a question of unbalancing a scenario in a competitive, aesthetic, or chivalry sense. It's about exploiting a limitation in the simulation engine (inability to expeditiously push or roll over a destroyed vehicle) so as to allow you to accomplish things that are impossible, or at least much more difficult, in the real world.

The point about sacrificing unrealistically-undervalued assets is spot-on, too, but can be mitigated to some degree (and with extra designer labor) by mission scoring. It would be nice if the scoring mechanism made it easier to specify the cost of losing a particular asset, rather than hard-coding vehicle values (Tank = 100, IFV = 40, truck = ???).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about destroying bridges with artillery, or IED's if available? Cheesy or acceptable?

IMO, perfectly acceptable from a player's standpoint -- assuming that bridges are not substantially more susceptible to destruction by arty/air/IED than they would be in real life.

If Redfor's destruction of the single wooden bridge over a river means Bluefor can't get across and loses the mission, the fault lies with the mission designer for not having upgraded the bridge to a sturdier one, providing other means of crossing, delayed Redfor's receipt of arty, etc. Of course, oversights happen and it would be unfortunate if a large MP session was ruined because of this. But I wouldn't blame Redfor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The point about sacrificing unrealistically-undervalued assets is spot-on, too, but can be mitigated to some degree (and with extra designer labor) by mission scoring. It would be nice if the scoring mechanism made it easier to specify the cost of losing a particular asset, rather than hard-coding vehicle values (Tank = 100, IFV = 40, truck = ???).

Right, just about everything can be compensated for by the scenario designer but that involves either stripping a scenario to "bare bones" or spending extra hours of valuable time just to add in the safety net who's sole intent is to keep people playing "fair". You could also avoid a map that has any bridges for example, or paint land bridges everywhere on the map. It isn't really about what hoops the scenario designer should jump through to account for all behavior - make a scenario is discouraging and time consuming enough as it is. ;)

I think the first point answer's Captain_Colossus' point just above. It's not merely a question of unbalancing a scenario in a competitive, aesthetic, or chivalry sense. It's about exploiting a limitation in the simulation engine (inability to expeditiously push or roll over a destroyed vehicle) so as to allow you to accomplish things that are impossible, or at least much more difficult, in the real world.

Right, I was referring to short comings of the game engine that effectively denies the bridge crossing in ways where you could really deal with the situation in real life. So, setting up the blocked bridge with your own units just exasperates the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It is a pain to have to do "X" in a scenario design because (a group of players) will do "Y"

If I know the person most likely to engage in that behavior (hunting a MBT with a Hummer) is on the other side, I am alert and simply destroy the HUMVEE before it can do any damage to me. Simple. I love simple.

The problem was, back in the day, a HUMVEE colliding with an MBT would cause damage far beyond would was realistic and this encouraged the behavior. (exploit)

There are just things you can do in real life that you cant counter in SB. Someone mentioned "water troops". Combat laden soldiers in water is risky business IRL. In SB its no problem because there isn't really much risk and there are/were multiple exploits involving infantry and water. Sometimes someone just goes to the well too often and gets caught.

Someone said they had previously unimagined tactics they were going to try. I doubt this. I have been hanging around here since very close to the beginning (2000) and others have been here since the development days before the release of the original SB. It is unlikely that anyone will come up with something that someone here hasn't already been thought of. Not impossible, just unlikely. A pretty good rule of thumb is that if people that have been here longer than you aren't doing whatever it may be, then its probably frowned upon.

Another problem here is that not everyone agrees with whats an exploit. The first post mentions the F8 view as having the potential for abuse. Either Gun or CO otherwise STFU, I think it said. The devils advocate would say, but the loader could be in his hatch scanning around, that's what I am simulating by having a player in the F8 view. Are they wrong? That's up for legitimate debate. What isn't up for debate are actions which allow for things like unlimited infantry endurance, or many of the things Ive already mentioned.

Mog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of Volcanos comments

But one more point that has to be taken in to account.

If you are playing as opfor namely a soviet commander

They were known for there utter disregard for both men and material at least in WW2.

A soviet commander would have no problem sacrificing or giving orders that would lead to a

Probable court marshal for a NATO commander and I think its unfair to expect a team

Playing as soviets to not act like Soviets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
I agree with most of Volcanos comments

But one more point that has to be taken in to account.

If you are playing as opfor namely a soviet commander

They were known for there utter disregard for both men and material at least in WW2.

A soviet commander would have no problem sacrificing or giving orders that would lead to a

Probable court marshal for a NATO commander and I think its unfair to expect a team

Playing as soviets to not act like Soviets.

Well,as I mentioned in the posts, it has nothing to do with "real life" but rather limitations of the game, and the desire we should should all have to not piss each other off. ;)

I play plenty enough as the soviets myself to know that you can play fair and still be effective. Red Tide was an example of that (where I played on both sides, BLUE for recon battles and as a Soviet Bn commander during the main battles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...