TheFatController

TheFatController

Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

TheFatController

Post by Regret »

Check PM when you get online.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: TheFatController

Post by Jazcash »

You do realize PM's are set to 'Popup notification' by default? So when he logs on, he'll get a nice box popup telling him he has an annoying message from you. You wouldn't know this because nobody PM's you.

JKKKKKKKKSSS I <3 you.







Ban him.
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: TheFatController

Post by TheFatController »

Saw it thanks, will have to fix tomorrow tho, have fun in the meantime :?
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: TheFatController

Post by Regret »

Alright, this can be deleted then.
YokoZar
Posts: 883
Joined: 15 Jul 2007, 22:02

Re: TheFatController

Post by YokoZar »

Sweet, an exploit. My bet is he's got a script that causes a unit to fire faster than it's supposed to.
User avatar
aegis
Posts: 2456
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:47

Re: TheFatController

Post by aegis »

nah, that's me.
he's probably talking about a different exploit.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: TheFatController

Post by JohannesH »

Invloves scouts and transports most likely.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: TheFatController

Post by Jazcash »

The nap moving coms exploits? Don't you dare -_-
User avatar
TheFatController
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 1177
Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46

Re: TheFatController

Post by TheFatController »

I shouldn't give ETA's, wrote a fix but you can still sploit it rarely so need to make it more elegant, will prob be tomorrow now :p

A simple solution would be to make it so you can't even give a load order against a moving unit; does anyone have any arguments against this? (it would make it harder to pin a com with transports to disable dgun, dunno if that's a bad thing tho)
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: TheFatController

Post by lurker »

Oh, is there an exploit? The transports accelerate faster when given rapid orders or something?

Because if you're complaining about being able to convince a transport to move half as intelligently as they did in OTA, matching speed, then I suggest you shift your focus.

And yes I see the issue in that it's braindead micro, unintended, but that doesn't reach 'exploit'.
User avatar
JohannesH
Posts: 1793
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Re: TheFatController

Post by JohannesH »

lurker wrote:Oh, is there an exploit? The transports accelerate faster when given rapid orders or something?

Because if you're complaining about being able to convince a transport to move half as intelligently as they did in OTA, matching speed, then I suggest you shift your focus.

And yes I see the issue in that it's braindead micro, unintended, but that doesn't reach 'exploit'.
napping a moving com is what this is about. with a widget.

And no, dont disallow load orders on moving units, i do that even to my own units too all the time.
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: TheFatController

Post by Regret »

TheFatController wrote:A simple solution would be to make it so you can't even give a load order against a moving unit; does anyone have any arguments against this?
No. Terrible idea. It would put in abstract limits on order queuing.
User avatar
lurker
Posts: 3842
Joined: 08 Jan 2007, 06:13

Re: TheFatController

Post by lurker »

Being unable to nap a com that's moving in a straight line as a regression from TA is a bug. So I ask again, does this behavior give the transports an agility boost or something?
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: TheFatController

Post by Regret »

lurker wrote:Being unable to nap a com that's moving in a straight line as a regression from TA is a bug. So I ask again, does this behavior give the transports an agility boost or something?
A moving unit was always an unnappable unit. This new behavior that allows to nap a moving unit is considered an exploit due to it breaking this habit and with it the whole gameplay (FFA games f.e. are ruined).

It may be a bug that moving units can't be napped, but it became a feature, just like strafejumping in certain FPS games.
Kloot
Spring Developer
Posts: 1867
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 16:58

Re: TheFatController

Post by Kloot »

No picking up of moving units needs to be a mod option anyway, not a defacto engine feature. I'll look at adding one for the next release.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: TheFatController

Post by Jazcash »

See this is what you get when you report an exploit to the wrong people. They make it a mod option instead.
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: TheFatController

Post by Regret »

Kloot wrote:No
Nobody said it didn't, this is BA subforum and about BA, not about engine features.
Kloot
Spring Developer
Posts: 1867
Joined: 08 Oct 2006, 16:58

Re: TheFatController

Post by Kloot »

Except that this issue now exists in all *A's because of engine changes, this just happens to be the first forum topic about it. They can either all come up with the same custom Lua prevention gadget, or the engine can do it for them generically. I'm not here to babysit BA in particular, so you can leave your humorous misquotations at the door.

In any case, have fun fixing.
User avatar
Jazcash
Posts: 5309
Joined: 08 Dec 2007, 17:39

Re: TheFatController

Post by Jazcash »

I haz solution. We remove air transports!
Regret
Posts: 2086
Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 19:04

Re: TheFatController

Post by Regret »

Kloot wrote:Except that this issue now exists in all *A's because of engine changes, this just happens to be the first forum topic about it. They can either all come up with the same custom Lua prevention gadget, or the engine can do it for them generically. I'm not here to babysit BA in particular, so you can leave your humorous misquotations at the door.

In any case, have fun fixing.
I was merely pointing out your 'No' had no meaning.
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”