Advanced Capture Technique but really a bug
Posts: 480 | Subs: 1
Posts: 117
Posts: 211
Posts: 971
The micro required to do that only allows to use it at the beginning of the game, so not something that needs to be fixed urgently.
Personally I think it's abuse anyway, as the game wasn't intended to let squads spread and you can only achieve that from profiting of a bug in the game.
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Lol, sorry but I can't agree. It would be a gameplay mechanic if there was a button that said: Spread out. The way it is right now, it is abuse of an unintended mechanic.
(Also there is no disadvantage to it, if you do it in the earlygame while the enemy can't reach your units anyway.)
This is the defintion of abuse.
If you want more interesting gameplay mechanics, I am all for it. But don't produce them out of bugs/abuses. Because these "features", because they were unintended, miss important design "rules". The biggest would be that they are not something that is intuitiv to new (or even old) players.
If there is something that truly adds to the Gameplay, then the Devs should take it, and implement it properly. Here for example with a button, or atleast a tipp/tutorial.
(Btw, I have no Idea what the fuck was going on with the Truckcrushing. But in the end, either they were incompetend in one way or the other, or they had a secret strategy how to deal with it, but instead of showing the community the strat, they decided it wasn't good for the game anyway.)
Thank goodness most people don't think like you do, because if they did, many of the most popular competitive games of all time would have been deprived of many of their most interesting mechanics. By your logic, reversing vehicles in vCoH was "abuse" because there wasn't a button for it. See how silly that sounds? Reversing vehicles in vCoH took advantage of quirks in the vehicle AI. There were no tutorials telling you how to do it, no button to do it for you, no entry in the manual explaining it. But it became an integral part of the game because of innovative players who realized how to take advantage of the game engine in an interesting way.
Do you think the Blizzard devs realized when they implemented their unit grouping behaviours for the original Starcraft that if you have an Overlord in a group of Mutalisks and put that Overlord far from the Mutas, the game would clump the Mutas into one unit-sized group because of the separation between the units, allowing Zerg players to micro more effectively and making mass Muta strategies viable? Fuck no, the community figured out that unintended interaction on their own and ran with it, paving the way for some of the most entertaining Starcraft games in history.
Do you think the Counterstrike devs realized during development that when a player crouches, has another player jump on top of him, then stands up, he is able to boost the player up to shoot from an unorthodox angle or take a shortcut that can shave precious seconds off travel time? Hell no, but people figured it out, and started using it, and now it's a cornerstone of CS competitive play, to the point where maps these days are designed with boosting in mind.
Do you think the Starcraft 2 devs realized when they were implementing their unit movements that if you moved a group of Mutas correctly and then issued a Stop command, you could have them hover over Thors without overlapping and getting hit by the Thor's splash damage? Doubt it, but people figured out that interaction within months and changed how Mech Terran had to be played. Did players cry about "abuse"? Hell no, they adapted and adjusted. The innovation of the player base caused changes to the metagame that the developers never could have predicted. But you'll never hear anyone complaining about "abuse".
The thinking that "unintended" = "abuse" is dangerous and extremely flawed. Players are the #1 source of innovation in any game, especially those with competitive multiplayer. Developers are fosters of this creativity, not police. And the community isn't bound by what's written in a manual. Discoveries like this need to be encouraged and celebrated, because they make the game more complex and more rewarding for those who are willing to invest their time into it. If you don't care about the game, you aren't going to care about this little quirk, and you won't care that people more serious than you are using it; but if you do care about competing, you're going to see somebody using this against you and start looking for how to do it yourself, because as a competitive player efficiency is your Bible, and every extra second you can find is valuable.
You know what was "abuse"? Ghost Tank Trap spamming in vCoH. In that case, Relic issued a public statement that they would punish any player found to be exploiting this bug, and stated their intention to remove it at a later date. That right there is abuse. Throwing it around every time a player innovates is cheap and, frankly, extremely close-minded.
So please, rethink your stance. It's not healthy for CoH, and it's not healthy for competitive gaming in general. Players should be encouraged to innovate, not berated when they discover interesting interactions that aren't explicitly stated anywhere. If Relic doesn't like this, they'll patch it out, or they'll release an official statement like they did with ghost TTs. But until that happens, celebrate that there are players dedicated enough to the game you enjoy playing that they are willing to spend countless hours figuring out how the game you play can be streamlined and played at the highest possible level.
ADDENDUM
On a little side note regarding your statement that capwalking provides advantage with zero risk: even if that were true, it is a non-issue, since this mechanic is available to all players. And though I can't speak for capwalking in CoH2, I can say with certainty that every single vCoH capping order that involves capwalking is vulnerable to an aggressive opponent who can, with an aggressive build order, very easily punish your greed. I don't see how you could capwalk in a manner that grants you any noticeable advantage while at the same time eliminating all risk from an aggressive opponent; the nature of the mechanic makes that situation nearly impossible to construct.
Posts: 542
Posts: 1355
P.S. I think you are defending it because you see it only from the competitive side and if something gives you an advantage then you like it. So i don't share your side even if you would describe it as a Super hot naked Blond on my bed
P.S. II. I give a sh.. if this happened in over (competitive) games, that doesn't effect me so i cant take it as an argument.
Posts: 987
Inverse, you can say what you want. This is not right. Units are not meant to get stretched out like that. If it was then it would be in the description of the gameplay infos ingame. It is a result of bad or not complete programing of the engine. I don't think that Relic knew that and still left it in the game. Some hyper active player discovered it, that does not mean that it is ok to use it tho. Because you are hangup on the word Abuse i will say that it is an exploit!
It isn't abuse or an exploit because every faction can use it equally.
I understand the argument that truck-pushing is abuse (I don't agree but I understand) because only OKW has it. But if a mechanic can be used by every faction, then it's not abuse. Just learn it and use it.
And I agree that the term "abuse" is being thrown around way too lightly. For example Maxim spam isn't abuse. It's Maximum spam, minimum micro. Annoying and boring as hell to play against / watch but is not abuse.
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Inverse, you can say what you want. This is not right. Units are not meant to get stretched out like that. If it was then it would be in the description of the gameplay infos ingame. It is a result of bad or not complete programing of the engine. I don't think that Relic knew that and still left it in the game. Some hyper active player discovered it, that does not mean that it is ok to use it tho. Because you are hangup on the word Abuse i will say that it is an exploit!
P.S. I think you are defending it because you see it only from the competitive side and if something gives you an advantage then you like it. So i don't share your side even if you would describe it as a Super hot naked Blond on my bed
P.S. II. I give a sh.. if this happened in over (competitive) games, that doesn't effect me so i cant take it as an argument.
Like I said above, vehicle reversing was never in any official Relic material for vCoH. Does that make it abuse or an exploit? Your logic is extremely flawed. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's a problem that needs to be fixed.
If you don't care about playing this game competitively then this mechanic will never, ever, ever affect you.
Regardless, your view is extremely close-minded. Where would gaming be today if everything that wasn't in a manual was barred from ever being used? You realize how terrible that would be, right? Capwalking isn't exploiting a bug, just like vehicle reversing in vCoH wasn't exploiting a bug. It turns out that if you give the game engine input in a certain way, it will act in a way that people weren't previously aware that it would act. That's not abuse, not exploitation, not anything. It's a cool little interaction that can help players be more efficient with their infantry. If Relic doesn't like it, they can comment on it or remove it, but until then, it's a part of the game engine, intended or not. It's little things like this that make games interesting for years after release.
Sandreas, your argument boils down to "it's not intended, therefore it is wrong", which, as my post and examples attempt to show (if you had taken the time to read and consider them of course), is a terrible way to think about game mechanics. You can dislike this mechanic if you want, and you can ask it to be removed if you want, but don't call it abuse or exploitation, because it's neither.
Posts: 476
But I don't think we need something like this in CoH2.
As for your examples with other games...
I don't think it is good. Boosting was a abuse (btw, we should define the word "abuse" at some point), untill the maps were designed around it, then it was a gameplaymechanic.
I wouldn't call reversing directly an abuse, but it was a big design flaw. NOW that it is properly implemented it is a good thing. Reversing in CoH1 was a community fix of a problem (pathing).
The mechanic is available to all players. Yeah. To all players who know about it.
And that isn't my biggest problem. It is badly designed (because it isn't).
Just look at Dota2 (even though I play it). There are tooons of wierd interactions. On one hand they do make the game more indepth, but on the other hand look how beginner friendly that game is because of it.
In the end, the negatives outweight the positives for me, ESPECIALLY when everything could just be implemented properly as an intended mechanic.
For me it seems you just want more micro in the game too distinguish players. But then please, tell it to Relic and let them implement more Micro the right way. If they think that is the direction they want the game to go. But that is a disscusion for another day (Thread).
Posts: 1702
That reminds me of Legend of Zelda Speedrunners, who glitch trough walls and use other buggs to get faster. I don't think that is good. The Speedrunner community seems to accept it, and it became a case of who can abuse the most. And that is fine. There is value in trying to break something as hard as you can.
But I don't think we need something like this in CoH2.
As for your examples with other games...
I don't think it is good. Boosting was a abuse (btw, we should define the word "abuse" at some point), untill the maps were designed around it, then it was a gameplaymechanic.
I wouldn't call reversing directly an abuse, but it was a big design flaw. NOW that it is properly implemented it is a good thing. Reversing in CoH1 was a community fix of a problem (pathing).
The mechanic is available to all players. Yeah. To all players who know about it.
Just look at Dota2 (even though I play it). There are tooons of wierd interactions. On one hand they do make the game more indepth, but on the other hand look how beginner friendly that game is because of it.
In the end, the negatives outweight the positives for me, ESPECIALLY when everything could just be implemented properly as an intended mechanic.
The thing with coh 2 is that is increases the skill cap of the game, because it's another place for good players to overcome weaker players. COH 2 already has rather low skillcap, so something increasing it is a very good thing.
Posts: 476
The thing with coh 2 is that is increases the skill cap of the game, because it's another place for good players to overcome weaker players. COH 2 already has rather low skillcap, so something increasing it is a very good thing.
Yeah, exactly. I just edited my earlyer post^^. I personally agree that the game could benefit from mechanics that increase the Skillcap, but only if they are implemented with tought.
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
I don't really think the comparison to speedrunning is entirely valid since in those instances players are exploiting very obvious bugs in the game's code to skip large sections of the game. In the case of this particular mechanic, it isn't a bug at all. There's nothing inherently wrong with this mechanic, nor with the way infantry units move in general. It's just an aspect of the engine that behaves in an interesting way under very specific circumstances. Removing this on Relic's end wouldn't be about fixing a bug but about reworking the fundamentals of their movement system.
Again, I get not liking it, and I get wanting it removed. If they got rid of it, I would be a little bit sad, but I would totally understand. But the simple fact that a mechanic is unintended does not automatically make it "abuse". That's the main point I want to get across, but I appreciate that your opinion may differ, and I'm glad that you can articulate it well enough to have an actual conversation about it. Hopefully people can look at both sides of this and make their own decisions.
Posts: 1355
If you don't care about playing this game competitively then this mechanic will never, ever, ever affect you.
Of course it effects me! Of course I play the game to win but this is not my first goal. My first goal is to have fun. I lost my last two games (50 minutes games) but they where both extremely fun. I would throw up if i would find out that i lost to someone who used that, it would be a shame.
About your argument (reverse in vCOH), i also think that this was a bad or incomplete design of the Engine.
Anyway, we should agree that we disagree on this. You think it is ok, i don't just because of the first sentence from above. I am a fan of Fair play and in my eyes this is not the case.
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
Your argument is still "it's not intended, therefore it is wrong". I've done my best to explain why that is a terrible opinion to hold. You are not convinced, that is fine, but hopefully others who hold your views can read my arguments and consider them fairly.
Posts: 1708 | Subs: 2
I just take issue with the whole culture in the CoH community that anything they don't like or that's not explicitly intended is instantly "abuse" and frowned upon. It puts such a chokehold on innovation, and it seems so strange to me.
I have to agree with that, even oddball yet effective strategies get frowned upon by the community at large which I find very disappointing.
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
Inverse, you can say what you want. This is not right. Units are not meant to get stretched out like that. If it was then it would be in the description of the gameplay infos ingame. It is a result of bad or not complete programing of the engine. I don't think that Relic knew that and still left it in the game. Some hyper active player discovered it, that does not mean that it is ok to use it tho. Because you are hangup on the word Abuse i will say that it is an exploit!
P.S. I think you are defending it because you see it only from the competitive side and if something gives you an advantage then you like it. So i don't share your side even if you would describe it as a Super hot naked Blond on my bed
P.S. II. I give a sh.. if this happened in over (competitive) games, that doesn't effect me so i cant take it as an argument.
Actually it is ok, unless Relic decides its a bannable exploit (or fixes it). People getting worked up over this shit is hilarious, its not even a gamebreaking bug. Now if you were getting upset because people discovered a bug that made units sprint everywhere (like the British Captain bug) then that would be understandable since that actually makes a huge impact, cap walking does not.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Exploiting pathing and infantry AI? Definitely, no questioning that, because it is obviously not intended to have your squads stretched over such distance intentionally.
Should it be punished? Meh, don't know, but trying to deny its an exploit is just... wrong.
Posts: 542
The thing with coh 2 is that is increases the skill cap of the game, because it's another place for good players to overcome weaker players. COH 2 already has rather low skillcap, so something increasing it is a very good thing.
What makes clicking around like a madman to gain an advantage like this make you consider "skillfull" or something to distinguish one player from another so that the one player deserves a win more than the other because of this? I am just not seeing it.
Posts: 2181
Any contact with the enemy will destroy this plan as the squad ai tries to get together asap
and you cant use it on soviet sniper squads
Livestreams
81 | |||||
50 | |||||
24 | |||||
18 | |||||
8 | |||||
6 | |||||
4 | |||||
225 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.639230.735+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.921406.694-1
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1047677.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Ronaldse
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM