Simple idea some of us came up with this morning:

 

In TDM, when a ship spawns, it has a flag/bit set on it. As long as the ship has that flag set, then if it self-destructs, the enemy team does not get a point. However, as soon as that ship damages or is damaged by an enemy ship, it loses the flag for the rest of that life, and if it self-destructs the enemy team will get a point.

 

This would severley hinder "self-destruct griefers", and it would also give new pilots a bit of grace--they can fly around and learn the controls, and if they happen to crash purely due to pilot error, or not knowing the map or what Power Dive does, it will not punish their team.

 

Anyone see any issues with this? I don't see how it could be a bad thing.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Nemarus

If you blast everyone on the other team using missiles and no one has hit you (unlikely, but possible) you could s/d to get more missiles and, given the proposal, would not increase the score of the opposing team. I guess a conditional statement could be added (if $ship_missile_count != 0 && $ship_damage_taken == 0, then $opp_score == $opp_score kinda deal; excuse the lack of formating as this was only an example to convey a concept). That way, players who have not exhausted all of their missiles AND have not taken damage would not affect the score count. If all missiles have been exhausted, then it would affect kill count (because you're self destructing to refill ammo)

Let me take a crack at this....

 

Scout vs. bomber, seismic mine, OH NO!!! *Runs into wall*

Let me take a crack at this....

 

Scout vs. bomber, seismic mine, OH NO!!! *Runs into wall*

 

Your not getting it.

 

Currently it works like this

If someone shoots me, and I then crash, that person gets a assist and a point for their team.

If I spawn and then crash without anyone attacking me, nobody on the other team gets and assist but they still get a point.

 

Under the OP's suggestion

If someone shoots me, and I then crash, that person gets a assist and a point for their team.

If I spawn and then crash without anyone attacking me, nobody on the other team gets and assist but their team also does not get a point.

 

Basically the OP's suggestion is to try and cut down on the people that intentionally grief their team by spam crashing.

If you blast everyone on the other team using missiles and no one has hit you (unlikely, but possible) you could s/d to get more missiles and, given the proposal, would not increase the score of the opposing team.

 

This is such a niche edge case that it doesn't matter.

This is such a niche edge case that it doesn't matter.

 

When coding, you account for ALL possibilites because doing so makes sense(just like you always assume the user is computer-illiterate when designing the UI). To pick and choose what to exclude and what to include when the possibility exists is either lazy or poor design (I don't link a button to a sql statement for a client needing to grab info from a database that would fail once out of x times - I'd program it to perform the desired intent and account for all scenarios). You're taught to code a variable with an initial value so that the system doesn't assign a random value that causes an unforeseen complication 1 out of a million times. Regardless of how small, it would still make an impact and create a "bug". If this was implemented, you'd need conditional statements for all niche scenarios, regardless of how small of an occurrence. Maybe it's different with game design, but programming must account for any outcome (hence why AI is so difficult to actually produce because you need to account for EVERY possibility). Reduce the glitch and include the niche

Edited April 24, 2014 by SammyGStatus

Your not getting it.

Basically the OP's suggestion is to try and cut down on the people that intentionally grief their team by spam crashing.

 

I've never seen anyone try to grief their team by suicide at spawn, and if they were really into griefing anyway they could just get hit by an enemy and commit suicide anyway.

Edited April 24, 2014 by phoenixjon

I've never seen anyone try to grief their team by suicide at spawn, and if they were really into griefing anyway they could just get hit by an enemy and commit suicide anyway.

 

I had a TDM match that we lost 38 to 50. Two of my teammates went 0-23 and 0-18. It happens, and it causes other players defeats / makes the stats very skewed and inaccurate / ruins the experience for others

Edited April 24, 2014 by SammyGStatus

Maybe it's different with game design, but programming must account for any outcome (hence why AI is so difficult to actually produce because you need to account for EVERY possibility). Reduce the glitch and include the niche

 

It is different in game design -- you want rules to be simpler and easier to understand so people jive better with them. Including exceptions tends to be indicative of another problem.

 

This specific example is super, super niche, and would likely come up in less than one in a thousand games. Like the red shell Mewtwo bug in SSBM, it's so hard to pull off that it should be encouraged, not banned.

 

Also, Nem, not sure why you're not taking all the credit for the idea.

Actually there's a more elegant way to handle your scenario Aimbot.

 

Simply have the rule be this:

 

Upon spawn, a ship has a flag "NO_DESTRUCT_SCORE" which means if it self-destructs, the enemy team does not get a point. However, as soon as the ship 1) damages another ship or 2) is damaged by another ship, it loses the flag for the rest of that life.

 

In other words, as soon as it has engaged in combat, any self-destruct results in a point for the other team. I'll update the original post.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Nemarus

My background in software / database design & network administration tells me that's bad practice to allow any glitches in any system (hence why we develop use cases - because things are SUPPOSED to be a certain way for a reason). Given the nature of what would cause the example glitch in this instance (running out of ammo without being shot), I think it's being assumed that this is just so far out of the realm of possible that it just can't happen (frequently). But take into account the the thread about being focused. Say one ship, that has an amazing ability to survive, is being focused by 2/3rd the enemy team. Players could be blasting missiles all day at the targets, who can break the lock or take the hit and not die. If the team is extremely focused, you're not going to get the attention, so you're able to burn through your missiles, with a decent chance that you aren't the target / are taking damage. One of my scout friends flies a very strong offensive and evasive build (imo) and uses his missiles constantly. At least once a night, he contemplates suiciding because he ran out of missiles. To have him kill himself, assuming he hasn't taken damage, to refill his missile supply without having it count against his team in TDM would be silly.

 

** I believe that if you get shot at all and someone else kills you, the person who hit you but didn't put the finishing strike on you still gets the assist, regardless of the amount of damage you do / if you hit the shields vs the hull. Wouldn't it make sense that if you're doing no actual damage (say you're only hitting shields which can be brought back up to 100%) it shouldn't count as an assist unless the ship doesn't fully recover? Granted, the attack assisted in changing up your strategy... My head hurts

 

My point here is that you don't have to try to do anything specific to make this happen - it can naturally occur in any match without the need to orchestrate a complicated series of precursor commands (Such as this. Given the amount of new players vs the amount of vets and the drastic difference in abilities from a mastered ship perspective to a stock ship perspective, it'd make sense to have this from the perspective that there is an actual chance for this to occur (assuming it's within the realm of six-sigma). It also would require a very minimal amount of additional effort considering the statistics are already being tracked. Since we have no metrics to identify this though, I feel that overlooking this promotes potential negative play, regardless of how rare it may be (but developers would only include this if the occurence of such an event passed being their allowed threshold for this action).

 

Just explaining my logic behind it - I can completely understand why they wouldn't include it. I'm just OCD when it comes to having my personals systems that I design to be flawless, and as such often requires a lot of additional time / energy (for a company, that would include increased resource utilization that potentially creates a detriment to other areas), hence my reasoning behind this. Since we didn't define the system parameters, BW is the ones who ultimately make the call.

 

Callem - Muchhhhhh more elegant There's more than one way to skin a cat, and yours sir is much more efficient. Makes sense to change it from "taking damage" to "engaging in combat" - shooting isn't the same as getting shot. Nice catch all!

Edited April 24, 2014 by SammyGStatus

It's a bad attempted solution because it's introducing excessive non-obvious exceptions to other rules, for a case that isn't very important. Ammo refill is supposed to be useful for something, anyway. (I know I have it on my Clarion, because I keep running out of protorps.)

 

Nem's original proposal of unassisted s/d not granting points is a good one.

 

Rhodogast / Kelril

Edited April 24, 2014 by Rollory

Actually there's a more elegant way to handle your scenario Aimbot.

 

Simply have the rule be this:

 

Upon spawn, a ship has a flag "NO_DESTRUCT_SCORE" which means if it self-destructs, the enemy team does not get a point. However, as soon as the ship 1) damages another ship or 2) is damaged by another ship, it loses the flag for the rest of that life.

 

In other words, as soon as it has engaged in combat, any self-destruct results in a point for the other team. I'll update the original post.

 

Well, at least it would force Daily/Weekly griefers (read: the ones who queue only to do their daily/weekly AND spend all their time crashing to make the battle go faster) to participate a little.

Your not getting it.

 

Basically the OP's suggestion is to try and cut down on the people that intentionally grief their team by spam crashing.

 

How many are there ?

It does make sense though, I have no doubt that teams that currently take every advantage would have no trouble moving one step more.

 

I can already see the posts

"Well if joining the other team on an alt and crashing is such an effective tactic why don't you do it as well"

Edited April 24, 2014 by General_Brass

How many are there ?

It does make sense though, I have no doubt that teams that currently take every advantage would have no trouble moving one step more.

 

I can already see the posts

"Well if joining the other team on an alt and crashing is such an effective tactic why don't you do it as well"

 

The only counter to griefers is MORE GRIEFERS!!! LMAO! They're the bombers of the swtor community

My background in software / database design & network administration tells me that's bad practice to allow any glitches in any system (hence why we develop use cases - because things are SUPPOSED to be a certain way for a reason).

 

And that is absolutely a valuable skill. That is how you make sure things don't break and security isn't breached and whatnot. But when it comes to game design...

 

I think it's being assumed that this is just so far out of the realm of possible that it just can't happen (frequently).

 

Yeah.

 

Let's assume there isn't a game-shattering bug that shows up if someone somehow manages to refill ammo without giving the other team a point. (If there is a bug that, for example, grants that pilot damage overcharge for the remainder of the match, that's a separate issue that needs addressing.)

 

If you run out of missiles, you're already at an advantage -- because you survived long enough to run out of missiles, which is far more than most pilots do. One point of difference really isn't going to turn the match, except in some really exceptional circumstances (which would have to be on top of the exceptional circumstances that let you survive that long without being hit).

 

Besides, in TDM, there are already ways to fully replenish your missile supply without dying.

 

My point here is that you don't have to try to do anything specific to make this happen - it can naturally occur in any match without the need to orchestrate a complicated series of precursor commands

 

Not true. If you let loose all your missiles without taking a single shot, you are certainly trying to not get hit. There's a lot of complicated maneuvering to get that to happen, and a lot of skill involved.

 

Hell, I could even see getting an achievement for it.

 

Upon spawn, a ship has a flag "NO_DESTRUCT_SCORE" which means if it self-destructs, the enemy team does not get a point. However, as soon as the ship 1) damages another ship or 2) is damaged by another ship, it loses the flag for the rest of that life.

 

3) Completes a lock, even if the missile is not fired.

When coding, you account for ALL possibilites because doing so makes sense

 

We aren't coding. We are designing game rules. The fact that a pilot would be able to theoretically gain a minor advantage in a case that will basically never happen isn't worth addressing in the rules.

The problem is that a griefer will grief. If the game prevents you from power diving into the spawn ship repeatedly, then a griefer, who is intelligent and malicious, will figure out how to make the enemy team have points. Reducing the rate by a little won't solve the problem.

 

 

So I don't really care. This change would be ok, but if you are getting griefed, that needs to be solved by a GM. Someone doing that needs to be removed from GSF or banned or whatever.

 

 

Very hard to find technical solutions to this kind of junk, and I'm sorry you ever see it.

The problem is that a griefer will grief. If the game prevents you from power diving into the spawn ship repeatedly, then a griefer, who is intelligent and malicious, will figure out how to make the enemy team have points. Reducing the rate by a little won't solve the problem.

 

I'm hopeful that most of them will give up when they realize it's not the quick and easy rewards they're used to. At the very least, those who do it to get through their dailies will likely find it less efficient than actually playing the game... though why you'd want to do the GSF dailies if you don't want to play the game is beyond me, so I can't say as I'm in a position to judge those people.

 

So I don't really care. This change would be ok, but if you are getting griefed, that needs to be solved by a GM. Someone doing that needs to be removed from GSF or banned or whatever.

 

Agreed. Computers just aren't equipped to handle human problems. Come to that, sometimes humans aren't equipped to handle human problems.

Bumping this, as "rage-SDers" are still a problem on TEH. There are some pilots who, if they've been killed a half-dozen times, just start self-destructing on spawn to throw the match.

 

We report them every time, but it'd help if this simple logic mitigated their ability to screw their own team.

This would severley hinder "self-destruct griefers", and it would also give new pilots a bit of grace--they can fly around and learn the controls, and if they happen to crash purely due to pilot error, or not knowing the map or what Power Dive does, it will not punish their team.

 

New pilots should be doing that in the tutorial.

 

I really can't stand power dive though.

Another bump for this. Suicide-griefing is still an issue from time to time, and this is an easy fix to stop it.