A neat little trick?

[swimsalot]

Couldn't figure out how I missed a player until I watched the replay.
Not exactly "realistic", but I guess it works for him.
Anyone know why this fools the torps?
Attached is the replay file.
If ya play against this guy, this is how he wins.<br><br>Edit- guess I cant attach files.<br>I'll post in CADC. Here's the link.<br><br><a href="mailto:http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=34893#post34893">http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?p=34893#post34893</a><br>

[LuftWolf]

Can you describe it here?

[Molon Labe]

Can you describe it here?


LW, it's very similar to what we saw in the Kapitan v. Worker replay a month ago. There's little to no indication of lag on this replay, though. I forget if the weapons came closer w/o acquiring in this one, but I seem to remember acquisitions and breaks in the other one. This one nothing grabbed on, ever.

[Kurushio]

That's one reason why I don't bother with online play. It has less to do with real-life tactics/skill and more to do with exploits/bugs and lag times. I used to play Aces High, the online warbird sim, and that was exactly the same...always someone using an exploit or they'd have a faster connection and they'd get to shoot first in a head-on. Fact remains the nature of humans is that if they can cheat, they will. Like communism wont work, online play will never work, for the same reason. Humans suck...

Online play sounds really good...until you try it. :roll:

[LuftWolf]

No, online play is great, if you play with the right people.

I suggest the GNSF, they are very good players, and cheating is taken very seriously, although it rarely happens because the members are generally nice people.

Also, LWAMI is the prefered method of play, which is great in my opinion (of course).

The Xbox-Live way of going definately sucks.

Cheers,
David

[Kurushio]

The Xbox-Live way of going definately sucks.

We agree on something. If they stop making computer games, then I stop playing video games...It's that simple. I hate consoles. :down:

[swimsalot]

What the other person does is wait until the enemy torps are getting close, then he fires a single torp set at a lower speed, turns it around, and has it follow right behind him. The enemy torps won't lock onto his sub, apparently distracted by his torp.
Not a cheat I guess, but I won't be playing with this guy again, beacuse as others have noted, it is not the style of play I enjoy.
Is there a way to "fix" this in LWAMI or something?

[swimsalot]

LW, it's very similar to what we saw in the Kapitan v. Worker replay a month ago. There's little to no indication of lag on this replay, though. I forget if the weapons came closer w/o acquiring in this one, but I seem to remember acquisitions and breaks in the other one. This one nothing grabbed on, ever. Funny, it's one of those guys that was doing it.
You can see that he had no idea where I was for quite awhile.
My TMA for him was dead on, so I knew there was something wierd going on when nothing would engage.
Not a very good player, but he has a little trick to stay alive :down:

[Kurushio]

What the other person does is wait until the enemy torps are getting close, then he fires a single torp set at a lower speed, turns it around, and has it follow right behind him. The enemy torps won't lock onto his sub, apparently distracted by his torp.
Not a cheat I guess, but I won't be playing with this guy again, beacuse as others have noted, it is not the style of play I enjoy.
Is there a way to "fix" this in LWAMI or something?
No, not a cheat but an exploit. Same meaning, different words. That's what I mean... Why are people that dumb? You buy an ultra-realistic naval sim, and then you do something which is totally beyond the realm of reality...just so..what? So you can all be smug with yourself? What's the point of that?

And I bet he's a 40 year old, pathetic moron to boot. I mean...the average player's age of this game must be pretty high.

I gave up with online play...long time ago.

[Molon Labe]

Funny, it's one of those guys that was doing it.
You can see that he had no idea where I was for quite awhile.
My TMA for him was dead on, so I knew there was something wierd going on when nothing would engage.
Not a very good player, but he has a little trick to stay alive :down:
When we looked at that replay from before, we were actually looking for evidence of a doctrine-level exploit, which we really didn't find any of. I don't recall ever discussing the possibility that a bug in the game was being exploited. My thoughts were that the acquisition behavior was due to being on the wrong side of the layer, or just acquiring a contact with a stronger return, etc. But, having seen it a second time, and without observing any kind of acquisition at all, it looks like a bug exploit could be the most likely explanation. I wonder if we can reproduce it to verify? That that is the case, there is a decent possibility it can be fixed at the doctrine level, since doctrines control acquistion and dropping of contacts.


EDIT: I just tried to reproduce it by shooting at myself, using a torp and an SLMM for "cover." The torp acquired me every time. I'm stumped.

[swimsalot]

If this helps, here's how it occurred from my side:
Detected Akula at about 15 nm to my SSE, above layer which was approx 660feet.
I went below layer, maneuvered for a better position, came back up, Akula still there, at about 4knots.
I launched 2 uuv's, 1 below, 1 above, they were too far to hear him.
Since I knew this guy was supposed to be hard to kill, I fired a full salvo of 5(!!!!) torps. I never fire that many,but I had heard stories of this guy evading torps, and I was short on time.
I could hear him above the layer the whole time, I would loose the contact immediately when I went below.
Became concerned it may have been a neutral when the torps were getting very close but he wasn't maneuvering away.
I activated my torps when the nearest were about 1.5nm away.
He fired a single torp, I could track it on TA BB, it was on his LOB, so I knew it was him and not a neutral.
He launched a few missile torps, they landed quite a ways away, no threat. This verified he was above the layer still.

My torps were set for ceiling of 10 feet, bottom of 2100.
Set different depths for them, ranging from 700-200 feet.
4 active, 1 passive at 40kts.
I tracked them in nicely, couldn't figure it out when they got to where he should be and nothing locked on.
Kept em searching, thought my TMA might be off, especially since I could still track his 50hz singal.
TMA updated his contact at 2okts, heading due South. I had a torp exactly on that position, I turned 2 of them around, they also wouldn't aquire anything at that position.

Eventual I shut em down, since I figured he must be doing something wierd, or my TMA was waaaay off.
At this point it was getting late, he had no idea where I was, so I called a draw.
When I watched the replay I was a little bummed to say the least.
I had just tracked and ID'd the target perfectly, sent 5 MK48 ADCAPs at him, and they didn't aquire him.

Hope we can get this fixed, but as I stated, I won't dive with him again.
What's the point?

[LuftWolf]

@Kurushio, there are more than enough good players in this community and other communities like the one in Combat Mission to have many great games and never have a problem. The issue with online play, like many other things, is anonymity. If you actually know the people you are playing against, the chances of having a good game go up considerably.

@swims, who was hosting this game? What was the game version? Modded or unmodded?

[LuftWolf]

[deleted]

[swimsalot]

Actually, I was the host.
No mods, version 1.03
Standard GNSF map.
No databse errors or anything like that at the start.
Like someone else said, I cant understand why people would want to play like that, but I guess its his right.
Im not saying hes cheating, because I dont understand the sim engine that well.
Again, any way to solve this exploit?

[LuftWolf]

Well, in that case, I'm not entirely sure what is going on here. Someone should just ask him.

My suspicion is that he is taking advantage of an error in the stock torpedo doctrines, the same one that prevents torpedoes from starting to search again if they lose their track, in which case, LWAMI fixed that some time ago.

But if it isn't that, then I'm not really sure at this point, like I said, someone should ask him when they get a chance.

[Kurushio]

Sorry to break it to you all, but using an exploit is considered cheating. They used to ban you at Aces High (without possibility of a refund) if they found you using an exploit. And that was without possibility of a refund (not good if you paid a year upfront). And you know what....that still didn't deter people. :damn:

[Molon Labe]

Sorry to break it to you all, but using an exploit is considered cheating. They used to ban you at Aces High (without possibility of a refund) if they found you using an exploit. And that was without possibility of a refund (not good if you paid a year upfront). And you know what....that still didn't deter people. :damn:

I think we're trying to hold off on a characterization until we know exactly what it is that's happening.

[goldorak]

I think we're trying to hold off on a characterization until we know exactly what it is that's happening.


Exactly, witch hunting season is still closed. :)

[Kurushio]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I was speaking in general terms, not about this person in particular. If he did use an exploit then he should be HUNG, DRAWN AND QUARTERED! :arrgh!:. If he didn't, he can have my rations of rum as apology...

[Fish]

Agree with ML and Goldorak here.
About exploiting such things, I know in 688 all kinds of exploits are used, for example after six years of multiplayer someone found you could "easely" evade torpedos, going all back emergencie, using High Freq sonar to follow the torps.
Also you can go 40 knts at the surface following shallow torpedos with your radar.
I don't think we should punish a diver for using a SLMM as a decoy, in war you use all you have to survive. It's not a cheat in my opinion and when you don't like what he is doing your free to look for a other diver.
As ML< I tested the SLMM as decoy, but the torps won't be spoofed.
Remember the Chinees (Worker) are restricted in there internet use bij the Chinees covernment, I wonder if that has something to do with the problem. cq LAG.

[Molon Labe]

Well, I didn't see any sign of lag in that replay, nor did the torpedo/SLMM/whatever it was appear to act as a decoy. The fact that I couldn't get the behavior to repeat is not exclulpatory, it just means I can't figure out what's going on yet. (Had I been able to repeat it, I might have been able to see what's going on in debug mode).

If it is the case that there is something quirky in the doctrine that is being taken advantage of, then I would not file this under "using what you have to survive."

[Orm]

Well, I didn't see any sign of lag in that replay, nor did the torpedo/SLMM/whatever it was appear to act as a decoy. The fact that I couldn't get the behavior to repeat is not exclulpatory, it just means I can't figure out what's going on yet. (Had I been able to repeat it, I might have been able to see what's going on in debug mode).

If it is the case that there is something quirky in the doctrine that is being taken advantage of, then I would not file this under "using what you have to survive."

Or it could be that you can see it only if you have change yourself some parts of the doctrine?

[Fish]

Or it could be that you can see it only if you have change yourself some parts of the doctrine?

That would,'t work I think, because the game uses the hosts doctrine, and that was Swims.

[Kurushio]

Anyone who uses a method, not meant by the game designers (and thus unrealistic), to evade torpedos/sink ships etc. Is using an exploit. Eploitation of bugs is cheating.

Yes, you do everything you can to survive in a war...but this is not war. Don't know if you noticed? ;) Nothing will happen to you if you get downed by a gaming torp, except lose a bit of pride.

Anyone who can't handle being bettered in a game and has to resort to cheating, is pathetic. My opinion.

[swimsalot]

I think the replay is fairly clear in regards to what was done.
As for it being reproducible, I haven't had the time to set up the dive conditions and try it myself.
My personal opinion is that he has figured out a way to exploit the torpedo homing doctrine.
As for wether or not that is "cheating", that is up to the individual, I guess.
For the record, the only reason I became suspicious is that the same person has been mentioned now a few times in these forums for "curious" activity.
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!"

[goldorak]

The point is that you have no proof.
If we start accusing everybody just because some wierd things happens in DW (modded or vanilla) soon we won't have anybody to play against.

Now if this behaviour was reproducible that would be a good sign of "cheating" but as the situation stands now the guy should just have the benefit of the doubt.

In the end I think that before going "public" with outcries of the type : some wierd things happened but are not reproducible -> someone's using a cheat,
why not keep the issue "private", have a number of senior players or well respected players have a look at the situation and try to find the cause of this behaviour.
If nothing conclusive is found no need to render it public.
If on the other hand you have scientific proof of cheating going on then
by all means make the situation publicly known to the community.

[Kurushio]

Ok, I didn't even know the person in question was a member of this forum. I just thought it was a random bod. Otherwise I would've been more tactful.

Though my rant was a more general one, anyway.

[swimsalot]

As I have stated a few times, I don't think this is a cheat in the technical sense; to be honest, my intent was to let others in the community, including alot of people I like, know about this.
If I see a tactic that I think is "dirty", I will let the world know, so we can come up with a way to defeat it.
In the past I did the same thing about a sub sitting in 30 feet of water when I was in a P3.

Since I was the host, my understanding is that it can't be a database switch, so I just feel it's a "dirty" tactic, and I let people know.
If they choose to dive with the person now, it's up to them.
EDIT: A "friend" of this individual just let me know that he admits he was using a SLMM.

[Kurushio]

Well I feel I have to apologise again to the person concerned...wish I knew beforehand the person in question was a forum member. Can't imagine anyone here cheating.
How about making it more pleasurabe to lose? Naked babe comes up on screen when a torpedo blows your sub to pieces..? :hmm:

[swimsalot]

I disagree about a need to apologize, sir.
I see the tactic of driving in front of an SLMM is taking advantage of a torp seeker code that Sonalysts is either unaware of or didn't forsee the possibility.
My understanding is that a real MK48 would probably kill the sub anyways, and go right by the SLMM.
Therefore, I see this as an exploit of an inherent weakness in the torp seeker doctrine.
To me, that is dirty. Maybe not technically a cheat, but not my style of play.
I see no need to apologize for pointing out that some players
(1 at least) use this tactic.

[Fish]

As I have stated a few times, I don't think this is a cheat in the technical sense; to be honest, my intent was to let others in the community, including alot of people I like, know about this.
If I see a tactic that I think is "dirty", I will let the world know, so we can come up with a way to defeat it.
In the past I did the same thing about a sub sitting in 30 feet of water when I was in a P3.

Since I was the host, my understanding is that it can't be a database switch, so I just feel it's a "dirty" tactic, and I let people know.
If they choose to dive with the person now, it's up to them.
EDIT: A "friend" of this individual just let me know that he admits he was using a SLMM.

It could be the SLMM was above layer, and the sub below, and torps are just spoofed.:hmm:
In that way, it's just a tactic, not a cheat.

[Kurushio]

I disagree about a need to apologize, sir.
I see the tactic of driving in front of an SLMM is taking advantage of a torp seeker code that Sonalysts is either unaware of or didn't forsee the possibility.
My understanding is that a real MK48 would probably kill the sub anyways, and go right by the SLMM.
Therefore, I see this as an exploit of an inherent weakness in the torp seeker doctrine.
To me, that is dirty. Maybe not technically a cheat, but not my style of play.
I see no need to apologize for pointing out that some players
(1 at least) use this tactic.

Therefore I retract my apology and stand by my original comments.

When you play multiplayer, before doing something, ask yourself, could this be done in real life? If not...THEN STOP IT! :stare:

[suBB]

Therefore I retract my apology and stand by my original comments.

When you play multiplayer, before doing something, ask yourself, could this be done in real life? If not...THEN STOP IT! :stare:

This is the second time around the same old maple tree, i should say the bilge pump lol

Someone correct me if im wrong.. but this 'little trick' is rather an old hat on 1.03 stock, WHICH WAS SUCCESSFULLY OWNED BY LWAMI LONG AGO. AFAIK, addressing this issue of using slmms as decoys is one of many reasons WHY LWAMI was released.

So with that being said, whats the problem? The guy who is 'cheating' is choosing his own battles and those who dive against him in stock are falling victim to it. From what I've read so far this only occurs on 1.03 stock.

Dive against him in LWAMI and see if his trumpet doesn't toot a different tune

[suBB]

It could be the SLMM was above layer, and the sub below, and torps are just spoofed.:hmm:
In that way, it's just a tactic, not a cheat.

I agree 100%...

[goldorak]

Therefore I retract my apology and stand by my original comments.

When you play multiplayer, before doing something, ask yourself, could this be done in real life? If not...THEN STOP IT! :stare:

Excuse me, but not everyone is versed on real world naval warfare tactics.
I have no knowledge about complicated tma theories, evasive patterns etc.... and short of clicking every sector on the kilo broadband or narrowband sonar which is a real cheat, what I do to escape a torpedo shoudn't be considered as a cheat.
What happens if I launch a passive + active decoy at the same time ?
Do I become a cheater because in real life a captain doesn't do this ? etc....
Lets cut some slack here.
For simplicity we should have a list of agreed actions which are considered cheats.
Same rule for all, as to whether non orthodox tactics count as cheat (without being a real in game cheat) well that's up for debate.

[Kurushio]

Then I apologise once again.


...I'm beginning to feel like the UN. :nope:

[goldorak]

Then I apologise once again.


...I'm beginning to feel like the UN. :nope:

No one has the right answer because we as a community still don't agree as to what is or isn't considered a cheat.
The exception being of course the really nasty bugs in the game which give you a "show truth" kind of quality such as the narrowband or broadband click bug.
In the end the "solution" will be arbitrary in nature but the real issue here is that we need comon rules as to what is considered acceptable and what is considered cheat.
Otherwise its just complete and utter caos where everyone is crying foul game when its not, players being considered cheaters when they are not etc....
Of course the fact that the different virtual navies have different rules doesn't help the situation.

[Kurushio]

No one has the right answer because we as a community still don't agree as to what is or isn't considered a cheat.
The exception being of course the really nasty bugs in the game which give you a "show truth" kind of quality such as the narrowband or broadband click bug.
In the end the "solution" will be arbitrary in nature but the real issue here is that we need comon rules as to what is considered acceptable and what is considered cheat.
Otherwise its just complete and utter caos where everyone is crying foul game when its not, players being considered cheaters when they are not etc....
Of course the fact that the different virtual navies have different rules doesn't help the situation.

I understand that. But, the one before was a known cheat.

So I retract my apology. :lol:

[Fish]

Deleted.

[suBB]

I understand that. But, the one before was a known cheat.
So I retract my apology. :lol:

OK,

Honestly I haven't been following this thread but that's not required to see where this is going(in circles), and where it is not going(proof of evidence)

I've said this once before re: kaptian vs worker and I will say this again, hopefully for the last time.

UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE EVIDENCE, these accusations carry no weight and should be disregarded.

For the 2nd time around, the community is blatentaly assaulting an innocent person w/o proof. Due to uncertainty and lack of proof, people like Kurushio can't decide where to stand on the issue. If that isn't a sign of lack of evidence then I don't know what is.

Technically it all makes sense: SLMMs are metallic objects, they emit a passive signature and with timing, maneuvers and deployment could very well serve as a decoy.

As goldorak stated some aren't well versed tactically than others.. If someone out-foxed you then it should be respected and learned from, and not criticized.

Instead, apparently without an effort to successfully reproduce the matter on hand, once again workers' integrity is challenged, his/her name is tarnished, his/her credibility is to near complete ****, and without proof.. all of this for no reason whatsoever.

This just isn't about sub sims and whatnot, it's also about the people thay play them.

Bottom line:

Accusers: put your money where your mouth is and provide evidence.

If you can't do that, then drop this issue, close this thread, move on with your lives and leave this man/woman alone.

[Fish]

OK,

Honestly I haven't been following this thread but that's not required to see where this is going(in circles), and where it is not going(proof of evidence)

I've said this once before re: kaptian vs worker and I will say this again, hopefully for the last time.

UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE EVIDENCE, these accusations carry no weight and should be disregarded.

For the 2nd time around, the community is blatentaly assaulting an innocent person w/o proof. Due to uncertainty and lack of proof, people like Kurushio can't decide where to stand on the issue. If that isn't a sign of lack of evidence then I don't know what is.

Technically it all makes sense: SLMMs are metallic objects, they emit a passive signature and with timing, maneuvers and deployment could very well serve as a decoy.

As goldorak stated some aren't well versed tactically than others.. If someone out-foxed you then it should be respected and learned from, and not criticized.

Instead, apparently without an effort to successfully reproduce the matter on hand, once again workers' integrity is challenged, his/her name is tarnished, his/her credibility is to near complete ****, and without proof.. all of this for no reason whatsoever.

This just isn't about sub sims and whatnot, it's also about the people thay play them.

Bottom line:

Accusers: put your money where your mouth is and provide evidence.

If you can't do that, then drop this issue, close this thread, move on with your lives and leave this man/woman alone.

Time for me to agree with you!

[Molon Labe]

As swimsalot as said many times, he's not accusing anyone of cheating. In fact, no one has nailed down exactly what it is that happened here, we're trying to figure that out. In the meantime, we've been advised that a technique is being employed that is either a cheap tactic or an exploit (we've ruled out cheating by doctrine modification).

And the statement that the SLMM was being used as a decoy and that therefore this is OK is patently false. The torpedoes in this replay did not lock onto the SLMM. Please check the facts before going on a tirade.

[swimsalot]

OK,


UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE EVIDENCE, these accusations carry no weight and should be disregarded.
Instead, apparently without an effort to successfully reproduce the matter on hand, once again workers' integrity is challenged, his/her name is tarnished, his/her credibility is to near complete ****, and without proof.. all of this for no reason whatsoever.

This just
I like playing with ya Subb, so I will assume that you just jumped in and didn't read the thread.
I have stated a few times now that I just wanted to know if this is a bug being exploited or not.
I provided a very clear replay of the mission, did ya watch it?
Since I'm not accusing anyone, I don't need to provide proof, but I would think that anyone watching the replay would think, "Wow, that's kinda wierd!"
So again, for the third time, I found this mission very strange, I provided a copy of the replay, and I'm asking the community if this is a bug or not.
Where is the harm in that?
It's not my fault the same guy has been accused a few times, that's just a coincidence.
Right?

[suBB]

I like playing with ya Subb, so I will assume that you just jumped in and didn't read the thread.
I have stated a few times now that I just wanted to know if this is a bug being exploited or not.
I provided a very clear replay of the mission, did ya watch it?
Since I'm not accusing anyone, I don't need to provide proof, but I would think that anyone watching the replay would think, "Wow, that's kinda wierd!"
So again, for the third time, I found this mission very strange, I provided a copy of the replay, and I'm asking the community if this is a bug or not.
Where is the harm in that?
It's not my fault the same guy has been accused a few times, that's just a coincidence.
Right?
well as i stated wasn't following this thread, but this thread is identical to an old one before vbulletin update re: kaptian vs worker..

this thread seems to be heading in the same direction as the one before which ended in a 'no contest' in favor of worker.. basically an investigation took place, couldn't prove anything and in the process they **** all over worker and closed the thread w/o apology of any kind.

bottom line is i want to understand whats going on here.. plain and simple.. no i didnt watch your replay.. and it doesnt strike me as odd.. using slmms as decoys makes perfect sense in my mind.. which would go down in the books as tactics and not a cheat or exploit or something wierd going on..

Like LW suggested.. have you asked worker about this? has ANYONE asked him about whats going on here? i wonder what he has to say about all this?

Better yet, if you really want to get to the bottom of this, ask SCS directly.. they are active in this forum as well.

P.S. my map is finished and ready for another round of playtesting, alot has changed since the last time you played it :) .. so ill look for you in gs

[Orm]

BTW, where is the accused? Are we too nasty, that he is too afraid to present to us his side of the story? I would like to hear very much his version of this dive.

[suBB]

In fact, no one has nailed down exactly what it is that happened here, we're trying to figure that out.
I dont think its for the community to figure out.. just ask SCS, unless you work for them or something, molon

[LuftWolf]

SCS isn't going to say anything about this, or any other issues between players.

[Fish]

BTW, where is the accused? Are we too nasty, that he is too afraid to present to us his side of the story? I would like to hear very much his version of this dive.

His english is poor, and I think he isn't aware of the thread.

[Orm]

His english is poor, and I think he isn't aware of the thread.

At least, if I am not wrong, he was quite reactive in the thread against Kapitain.

[Molon Labe]

I dont think its for the community to figure out.. just ask SCS, unless you work for them or something, molon

It would be foolish to sit idly by waiting for SCS to do anything. They aren't doing too much work these days, unfortunately. Even if they were, this doesn't seem like something they'd give top priority, especially if this is something going wrong at the doctrine level. SCS is quite content to leave doctrine and database errors to the community to fix.

[suBB]

It would be foolish to sit idly by waiting for SCS to do anything. They aren't doing too much work these days, unfortunately. Even if they were, this doesn't seem like something they'd give top priority, especially if this is something going wrong at the doctrine level. SCS is quite content to leave doctrine and database errors to the community to fix.
This isn’t a matter of sense of priority, being patient or being foolish, molon, this is about quality of product and accuracy. One answer on this from SCS would wrap this up once and for all. I’d rather wait for an accurate answer to all this, instead of going around in circles, in this case the 2nd time around, you may as well say X times around.

The exact same thing is happening again since kapitian vs worker. AFAIK the findings were inconclusive, otherwise there would be an explanation to all this. So after saying that, what makes you think anyones findings will be any different than before?

If anything that’s foolish is leaving errors in product left to be fixed by the community.

Unless you are an employee and you actually worked on the project on that level that doesn’t really qualify anyone to do their job.

And I guess the answer is NO that you are not an employee of SCS nor were officially part of the DW project :P

In the meantime give word about this issue to SCS and while waiting, try and figure out what’s going on.

[LuftWolf]

And I guess the answer is NO that you are not an employee of SCS nor were officially part of the DW project

Watch the credits for DW 1.03.

[suBB]

Watch the credits for DW 1.03.

you have a link to this? i didn't notice anything in 1.03 readme on SCS site

http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/downloads/download_games.html

[Kurushio]

I don't think it matters if SCS answers or not. I think what matters is...ask yourselves: "Could this happen in real life, or not?". If the answer is NO, then it should be considered an exploit. End of. No ifs, no buts. It's the same thing if you play Battlefield 2 and at a certain point on a map you can leap onto the top of a 10 story building. Could it be done in real life? NO. Then it shouldn't be considered a viable "tactic" in game i.e. it's an exploit i.e. it's cheating. Same thing with any game...you play a frog in Everquest 2, should you be able to fly? No!

So I apologise*



*NOT!

or maybe...later (we'll see)

p.s. By the way....has anyone played Everquest 2? I got banned from it cos my frog character was deemed "...to have violated the Terms of Service by insinuating behaviour of a sexual kind". What??!! All I did was: I got my frog character (he was called Frenchy...RIP my good buddy :nope:) and stood inbetween this barmaid's legs with my head sticking out of 'em and say "mmmm....fish!". Used to do it every time I logged on. :88)
Frenchy is now in jail indefinitely on the Everquest servers...I must find a way to liberate him. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

you have a link to this? i didn't notice anything in 1.03 readme on SCS site

http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/downloads/download_games.html

Just exit the game and watch the closing credits.

[suBB]

Just exit the game and watch the closing credits.

At the moment I can't confirm that, but your word is good, LW, so I stand corrected

[swimsalot]

Worker's only response to me so far was an ICQ message that said, "You don't like my tactics? Too bad, hehe"
So that was real conducive to a meaningful dialog.

[suBB]

I don't think it matters if SCS answers or not. I think what matters is...ask yourselves: "Could this happen in real life, or not?". If the answer is NO, then it should be considered an exploit. End of. No ifs, no buts. It's the same thing if you play Battlefield 2 and at a certain point on a map you can leap onto the top of a 10 story building. Could it be done in real life? NO. Then it shouldn't be considered a viable "tactic" in game i.e. it's an exploit i.e. it's cheating. Same thing with any game...you play a frog in Everquest 2, should you be able to fly? No!
So I apologise*
*NOT!
or maybe...later (we'll see)
p.s. By the way....has anyone played Everquest 2? I got banned from it cos my frog character was deemed "...to have violated the Terms of Service by insinuating behaviour of a sexual kind". What??!! All I did was: I got my frog character (he was called Frenchy...RIP my good buddy :nope:) and stood inbetween this barmaid's legs with my head sticking out of 'em and say "mmmm....fish!". Used to do it every time I logged on. :88)
Frenchy is now in jail indefinitely on the Everquest servers...I must find a way to liberate him. :hmm:


ok

given:

Is slmm a metallic object: yes
If pinged, will slmm generate an active return: yes
Once fired slmm travels to waypoints, so does slmm also generate a passive signature: yes

-----

I'm going to look into this later but AFAIK, once a tropedo aquires and it assumes a ballistic trajectory.

I.E. sub A fires salvo from 2100 ft, while disabled the torpedo will run in straight running mode @ 2100ft until enabled.

Torps are now enabled and seeking, they finally aquire, then will go from sub A launch depth of 2100 ft to ceiling depth, lock on target and decend to intercept - this is the ballistic trajectory I’m talking about. So technically the torp crosses the same layer twice with this kind of trajectory.

sub B can locate and plot incoming threat, since threat is so close, sub B will have speed and passive classification if he wants it. Sub B can also know what layer threat is relative to ownship.

Again I’m going to check into the trajectory bit as I remember all this from SC and quite certain its the same for DW stock 1.03 and LWAMI..

BUT!!!!!

If torpedo assumes trajectory as I described and slmm is fired at same layer as threat, and slmm being a metallic object emitting a passive signature, then sub B changes layer, effectively maneuvering out of tracking cone... The only returns(active and passive) the torpedo will see is from slmm.. effectively by-passing sub B.

Sounds like this skipper knows what he is doing..

----
Re-cap:

Is slmm a metallic object: yes
If pinged, will slmm generate an active return: yes
Once fired slmm travels to waypoints, so does slmm also generate a passive signature: yes

so based on threat trajectory, timing and maneuvering, can deploying a slmm divert an incoming(passive or active torpedo) in real life? I have to say yes.

You can call it cheap tactics, but tactics aren't valued at price, only effectiveness.

tactics IS tactics.. Ladies and gentleman...


@ swims:

Your home-work assignment is to confirm torpedo trajectory on 1.03 no mods from launch depth of 2100 ft - wireguide torpedo to 3nm from ownship, turn it around, enable at 1.5nm. once enabled, monitor torpedo change in depth.

Extra credit:

Meet up in gs for playtesting :)

See ya soon

[Kurushio]

I wonder about the mindset of a person who plays an ultra-realistic sim, then does something like this. Would a captain of a real life sub shoot off an SLMM in order to evade torpedos and would it work? No and no...I'm willing to bet.

It's like if I'm playing an ultra-realistic war bird sim and I have 5 heat-seeking missiles closing on my 6. I fire off a missile just as they are about to fly up my exhaust...at the last moment they deviate and follow the missile.

Does the missile have a heat source: yes
If the heat seeker seeks an infra-red signature, will the missile give one: yes
Once launched, does the missile fly in the same trajectory as the plane: yes

Would it work in real life: no

;)

[suBB]

I wonder about the mindset of a person who plays an ultra-realistic sim, then does something like this. Would a captain of a real life sub shoot off an SLMM in order to evade torpedos and would it work? No and no...I'm willing to bet.
It's like if I'm playing an ultra-realistic war bird sim and I have 5 heat-seeking missiles closing on my 6. I fire off a missile just as they are about to fly up my exhaust...at the last moment they deviate and follow the missile.
Does the missile have a heat source: yes
If the heat seeker seeks an infra-red signature, will the missile give one: yes
Once launched, does the missile fly in the same trajectory as the plane: yes
Would it work in real life: no
;)

I’m sorry but I think your reasoning is flawed:

1. You are not another captian so you can't really say what someone else would do.

2. Your condition was based on a real life possibility, I want to say my reply to your conditions is pretty much common sense!?!?

3. You keep crossing the boundaries of sim and real-life - make up your mind

4. You can only speak for yourself as to what you would do in the situation. Goldorak covered it nicely as those tactically versed than others. In this case you would not, doesn't mean somone else would.

5. Stay on subject - the subject is dw.. Not all that other stuff you play. You can't accurately compare and/or disect 'apples' and apply it to 'oranges'

6. Heck, you can't even decide if you owe an apology/or not/on when lolololol ..sorry had to throw that in :)

[Molon Labe]

ok

given:

Is slmm a metallic object: yes
If pinged, will slmm generate an active return: yes
Once fired slmm travels to waypoints, so does slmm also generate a passive signature: yes

-----

I'm going to look into this later but AFAIK, once a tropedo aquires and it assumes a ballistic trajectory.

I.E. sub A fires salvo from 2100 ft, while disabled the torpedo will run in straight running mode @ 2100ft until enabled.

Torps are now enabled and seeking, they finally aquire, then will go from sub A launch depth of 2100 ft to ceiling depth, lock on target and decend to intercept - this is the ballistic trajectory I’m talking about. So technically the torp crosses the same layer twice with this kind of trajectory.

sub B can locate and plot incoming threat, since threat is so close, sub B will have speed and passive classification if he wants it. Sub B can also know what layer threat is relative to ownship.

Again I’m going to check into the trajectory bit as I remember all this from SC and quite certain its the same for DW stock 1.03 and LWAMI..

BUT!!!!!

If torpedo assumes trajectory as I described and slmm is fired at same layer as threat, and slmm being a metallic object emitting a passive signature, then sub B changes layer, effectively maneuvering out of tracking cone... The only returns(active and passive) the torpedo will see is from slmm.. effectively by-passing sub B.

Sounds like this skipper knows what he is doing..

----
Re-cap:

Is slmm a metallic object: yes
If pinged, will slmm generate an active return: yes
Once fired slmm travels to waypoints, so does slmm also generate a passive signature: yes

so based on threat trajectory, timing and maneuvering, can deploying a slmm divert an incoming(passive or active torpedo) in real life? I have to say yes.

You can call it cheap tactics, but tactics aren't valued at price, only effectiveness.

tactics IS tactics.. Ladies and gentleman...


@ swims:

Your home-work assignment is to confirm torpedo trajectory on 1.03 no mods from launch depth of 2100 ft - wireguide torpedo to 3nm from ownship, turn it around, enable at 1.5nm. once enabled, monitor torpedo change in depth.

Extra credit:

Meet up in gs for playtesting :)

See ya soon

But the SLMM did not divert the torpedo in that dive. If that was the case there would be no mystery about what happened.

[suBB]

But the SLMM did not divert the torpedo in that dive. If that was the case there would be no mystery about what happened.
After firing of the slmm, what did the sub do course-wise?

[suBB]

**** i may as well dl the replay as well...

[swimsalot]

Unless I am mistaken, the sub's tactic was to drive in a straight line at the same speed.
So, after reading your message Su88, what you are saying is if the torps I fired went from really deep to really shallow and then back to search depth, they might loose the sub?
Well, I guess that's possible, but that has nothing to do with what happened in this dive.
I launched from about 500 feet, layer was at 550 or so, target was above the layer the whole time.
I set search depths for active torps at 700, 600, 500, and 200.
Passive was set at 200.
So there was no parabolic climbing and diving by the torps, most were above the layer the whole time.
Like I said, still looking for a reason...

[Fish]

After firing of the slmm, what did the sub do course-wise?

Yesterday in a multiplayer dive, I sended two SLMM's to a chock point, on there journey they crossed the path of three enabled torpedos, well inside there search cone, nothing happen.
With LWAMI, not stock as in the replay.

[suBB]

If this doesn't cut it I don't know what will:

http://subguru.com/BluebookR20.zip

Refer to page 38, section L - Blue Defense


I'd say someone was doing their homework - and someone else forgot to...


again.. tactics IS tactics....

[Molon Labe]

If this doesn't cut it I don't know what will:

http://subguru.com/BluebookR20.zip

Refer to page 38, section L - Blue Defense


I'd say someone was doing their homework - and someone else forgot to...


again.. tactics IS tactics....

and again, the mine did not act as a decoy in that game!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

[suBB]

If this doesn't cut it I don't know what will:

http://subguru.com/BluebookR20.zip

Refer to page 38, section L - Blue Defense


I'd say someone was doing their homework - and someone else forgot to...


again.. tactics IS tactics....
and again, the mine did not act as a decoy in that game!:damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:
I dont know what else to say to this..

i give up!

besides i found some bugs in beta testing.. i think id have a far better chance resolving those than my chances resolving this one..

either inform SCS about it for a clear understanding... or spend the rest of your natural lives figuring it out..

good luck

[Kurushio]

Would be too much to ask people to just stop using the tactic? It's dubious at best...so...with a little self-constraint...DON'T DO IT! :stare: Or do...see if I care. :smug: But remember...you're not a fellow navy-simmer in my eyes. Just a small, wet, sardine.

[worker321]

the incoming torps did to lock onto the mine.they did not detonate on the mine.just becasue of the net laggs problem,before swim's torps enable,I have fire 4 missiles to him,only 2 to him there,another two are not normal,disappear.this is why his torps not detonate on my mines.
on the normal situation,if the net is normal, his torps should lock onto my mines, and can detonate on the mine.

[Molon Labe]

the incoming torps did to lock onto the mine.they did not detonate on the mine.just becasue of the net laggs problem,before swim's torps enable,I have fire 4 missiles to him,only 2 to him there,another two are not normal,disappear.this is why his torps not detonate on my mines.
on the normal situation,if the net is normal, his torps should lock onto my mines, and can detonate on the mine.

I didn't see any sign of lag in that replay, and I never saw any of the torps break out of search mode.

I'm glad you stopped by here. How does this work?

[swimsalot]

I never saw the torps lock onto the SLMM, perhaps I missed that in the replay?
I too don't see signs of lag, but maybe I am missing that?
I am very open to learning about this valuable new tactic, although it doesn't seem to be one I can reproduce.
I can't get the torps to just keep going by my sub in search mode, they either lock onto the SLMM or my sub.:down:
EDIT: Oh, and if all the SLMM does in this tactic is make a torp lock onto it and explode, according to the Bluebook, isn't that what an active cm does in stock 1.03?
Why would you launch a slmm to decoy a torp, but knowing that you have 5 torps in the water, all on your bearing, all within 1.5nm of you, why would your only tactical move be to:
(1) drive in a straight line at a set speed
(2) launch 1 slmm
(3) drive right in front of the slmm until torps miss you.

Is that what it says to do in the Bluebook? Someone wrote a document that gives this scenario as how to avoid torps?
Funny, I did my homework and read the whole section on Blue Defense, couldn't find anything like that in there. Could someone tell me what page that is?
So we are all agreed then that the above tactic (drive in straight line, maintain speed, launch 1 slmm) is a standard, published, commonly used tactic that works for everyone? And it should work for everyone, easily reproducible?
Hmm, I better read that book again...

[suBB]

I never saw the torps lock onto the SLMM, perhaps I missed that in the replay?
I too don't see signs of lag, but maybe I am missing that?
I am very open to learning about this valuable new tactic, although it doesn't seem to be one I can reproduce.
I can't get the torps to just keep going by my sub in search mode, they either lock onto the SLMM or my sub.:down:
EDIT: Oh, and if all the SLMM does in this tactic is make a torp lock onto it and explode, according to the Bluebook, isn't that what an active cm does in stock 1.03?
Why would you launch a slmm to decoy a torp, but knowing that you have 5 torps in the water, all on your bearing, all within 1.5nm of you, why would your only tactical move be to:
(1) drive in a straight line at a set speed
(2) launch 1 slmm
(3) drive right in front of the slmm until torps miss you.
Is that what it says to do in the Bluebook? Someone wrote a document that gives this scenario as how to avoid torps?
Funny, I did my homework and read the whole section on Blue Defense, couldn't find anything like that in there. Could someone tell me what page that is?
So we are all agreed then that the above tactic (drive in straight line, maintain speed, launch 1 slmm) is a standard, published, commonly used tactic that works for everyone? And it should work for everyone, easily reproducible?
Hmm, I better read that book again...

ya the page number is: page 38, section L - Blue Defense (lolololooool)

[Molon Labe]

That's a very good point about the Bluebook tactic, Swims. Attracting several torps to your exact location by using a mine as we have seen would be suicide. In fact, the Bluebook calls for you to leave the mine behind, not to run it just behind you. For this reason, I'm very skeptical about Worker's explanation that his goal was to get the torpedoes to acquire the mine. Of course, dishonesty is not the only explanation for this, it might just be a mere tactical error that he survived because of a lag problem.

Since Worker posted that he believed the odd behavior was connection related, I've re-reviewed the replay in question. Of all the anomalous replays I've seen, this looks like the most lag-free. But, upon closer examination, there are a few signs of minor lag that begin to come in once the torpedoes are enabled. Specifically, Worker's sub warped four times during "evasion." I am a bit reluctant to accept lag as an explanation, because I've never known lag to prevent acquisitions (quite the opposite, I've seen lag cause a sub to be killed where the host computer thinks that sub is, even though the skipper changed course awhile back and was not in that position! the weapon "acquired" just fine! I've also seen connection problems cause weapons to acquire but not detonate...again, not what we see here).

But, since I haven't been able to reproduce this on my own, it may well be the case that there was something unique in that game, instead of a doctrine problem. Unless we are able to reproduce the behavior and/or find a specific bug in the doctrine that is being exploited, I'm content to accept lag as a reasonable explanation for this behavior at this point.

[swimsalot]

Fine by me, we call it a lag issue.
That sounds better than "this is a tactic that's in the Bluebook".:rotfl:
McFester used to have lag problems all the time, and, as you mentioned, what usually happened was that he died, but he showed himself as alive for another 5 minutes.
Ok, I'll just dive against people that don't have lag issues!

[suBB]

Fine by me, we call it a lag issue.
That sounds better than "this is a tactic that's in the Bluebook".:rotfl:
McFester used to have lag problems all the time, and, as you mentioned, what usually happened was that he died, but he showed himself as alive for another 5 minutes.
Ok, I'll just dive against people that don't have lag issues!

I think you owe worker an public apology, swims..

this thread has turned into a 2nd round of invalid assumptions, frustrations, anger, disrespect, embarrassment, challenge of integrity, redicule towards worker.. to say the least...

And to come from all this was unsuccessful efforts to reproduce ANYTHING and HIS ISP is to blame for 'a neat little trick'

[Kurushio]

I blame the dolphins....obviously the had a hand in this. :yep:

[suBB]

I blame the dolphins....obviously the had a hand in this. :yep:

LOLOLOLOLOOOOOL :)

[swimsalot]

In case ya didnt get it, I was being sarcastic in blaming this on lag.
I'm just trying to be polite.

[Kurushio]

In case ya didnt get it, I was being sarcastic in blaming this on lag.
I'm just trying to be polite.

No offence...was just trying to lighten the mood. :up:

[swimsalot]

No, I thought the dolphins was funny!
It's the crap about apologizing that I was referring to

[Molon Labe]

Fine by me, we call it a lag issue.
That sounds better than "this is a tactic that's in the Bluebook".:rotfl:
McFester used to have lag problems all the time, and, as you mentioned, what usually happened was that he died, but he showed himself as alive for another 5 minutes.
Ok, I'll just dive against people that don't have lag issues!
I think you owe worker an public apology, swims..

this thread has turned into a 2nd round of invalid assumptions, frustrations, anger, disrespect, embarrassment, challenge of integrity, redicule towards worker.. to say the least...

And to come from all this was unsuccessful efforts to reproduce ANYTHING and HIS ISP is to blame for 'a neat little trick'


Ha! Swimsalot has been very consistent through this whole process that he wasn't accusing him of cheating, but that he wanted to advise us of a possible bug and/or unrealistic tactic being used.

[suBB]

Fine by me, we call it a lag issue.
That sounds better than "this is a tactic that's in the Bluebook".:rotfl:
McFester used to have lag problems all the time, and, as you mentioned, what usually happened was that he died, but he showed himself as alive for another 5 minutes.
Ok, I'll just dive against people that don't have lag issues!
I think you owe worker an public apology, swims..

this thread has turned into a 2nd round of invalid assumptions, frustrations, anger, disrespect, embarrassment, challenge of integrity, redicule towards worker.. to say the least...

And to come from all this was unsuccessful efforts to reproduce ANYTHING and HIS ISP is to blame for 'a neat little trick'

Ha! Swimsalot has been very consistent through this whole process that he wasn't accusing him of cheating, but that he wanted to advise us of a possible bug and/or unrealistic tactic being used.
My reason for saying that is I think the tone of this thread over the course of time has casted a shadow over worker, yet and still there is no proof of anything or duplication of the mechanism. MHO, lag is a sorry excuse.

It’s the principal of the matter.

Mention his name in gs, 9 out of 10 people will avoid him like the plague(or could be the aftershave instead, i dunno hehe j/k).

Last I’ve heard from a high ranking official, because of kaptian vs worker he is deemed as a cheater and is banned from all ssn dives.

I wonder what kind of message the tone of this thread sends to those unaware of kap vs worker(since vBulletin upgrade) and are now monitoring this thread?

And anyone hasn’t even been able to reproduce anything – so tell me what has changed since kaptian vs worker in the fact finding process?? Results are still inconclusive – wasn’t lag your same reason then as it is now, molon? And you are the next best person to being qualified, or anyone else couldn’t even duplicate the matter, so you chalk it up as lag? I’m sorry but that’s not good enough.

I still think this is an issue that only SCS can resolve, and with accuracy.

I never saw the torps lock onto the SLMM, perhaps I missed that in the replay?
I too don't see signs of lag, but maybe I am missing that?
I am very open to learning about this valuable new tactic, although it doesn't seem to be one I can reproduce.
even swims isn’t sure of himself or conditions regarding this matter... so again.. with all these uncertainties and assumptions there is no possible way to draw an accurate conclusion.

I think the replays are very limited as its a one dimensional look at things – why not recreate the scenario with two divers and monitor the results, in this case two ‘lagless’ players.

@ molon

I fixed the helo bug.. seems to work just fine now in MP.. with all ai scripting included.

[swimsalot]

I guess the bottom line for me is this:
I have over 100 kills, have played quite a few mp games, including with Mcfester, the former king-of-lag.
I have never seen anything like this happen before or since.
Other people have had similar "curious" situations with the same player.
Irregardless of what the cause is, it is understandable that people may not want to play against someone with this type of track record.
When you look at the amount of players involved on these forums, the odds of the SAME player being mentioned in more than 1 thread are quite small. Perhaps just coincidence.
Therefore, I really can't blame people for not wanting to dive.

My time online is limited, so why would I want to waste time playing against someone that might not have the same ideals as I do about how the game is played?
I don't go out to dinner with people I don't like, I don't invite people over for a beer if I don't trust them, I feel the same way about this.
I have agreed to call it lag, a tactic, or whatever, people are free to do what they want.
I thank all for their input.

[LuftWolf]

I fixed the helo bug.. seems to work just fine now in MP.. with all ai scripting included.

What bug?

[suBB]

I fixed the helo bug.. seems to work just fine now in MP.. with all ai scripting included.
What bug?
ah yes...

in the map im making 5 player MP(LWAMI 3.02), there was a problem where player controlled ffg couldn't control ai scripted helo(which is also controllable)

edit: Helo is tasked to join up with ffg after taking off from an airbase, and help provide escort for a departing 688.

the problem was that i had waypoints assigned as tactics, and it would fly against the will of helo commands from ffg.

the solution was assigning helo tactic of sonobouy search over a wide area(OP area included and some parts in-land), but still the helo would be guided out to sea, and allowed 100% control from ffg :up:

and yes.. ill make maps that will support lwami.. ill post comment there :)

[Molon Labe]

In all fairness, it isn't Swim's fault if others took an accusatory tone. He didn't.

Also, the lag in Kapitan's game was obvious, making it very likely that lag was the explanation. This game had very minor signs of lag. I can't say with any confidence that lag was the real reason; I can only say it's a reasonable explanation.

Even if no bug is being exploited here, a "shadow" on gamespy, etc. has been earned. If he was trying to use a mine as a decoy as he said he was, though not "cheating" in any real sense, is still unrealistic and qualifies as a good reason to play with someone else. I've got no more sympathy for him losing game time due to that than I do for sub drivers who use saturation attacks or airdales the lob torps from 30k feet. If you play like a douchebag, people may not want to join you next time, and that's a good thing.

[Kurushio]

I still question the mindset of someone who uses such a tactic. I also question the mindset of someone continuing to use the tactic even though he's been made a pariah because of it. I thirdly question the mindset of a person who sends an ICQ message saying "...you don't like my tactic? Tough...hehehe".

Nobody can force him not to use the tactic but then again he can't force anyone to play with him. If he enjoys playing alone...:hmm:

People like this is why I've pretty much given up playing online. My opinion.

[goldorak]

People like this is why I've pretty much given up playing online. My opinion.

Too bad, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. :down:

[Kurushio]

Too bad, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. :down:

I know...believe me I love the idea of online play...it's playing with other humans I don't like. People in general are not honest enough to play fair when they don't have to...that's the impression I got. How many games of mine were spoilt by idiots?...countless. FPS, RTS, Sims, you name it...all types of games...and some which don't appeal to kids (Aces High, for example) so it's not only immaturity to blame. Biggest heartache was Aces High...for sure. You'd be dogfighting for half an hour, classic fight...then the idiot cheats by using the warp exploit for example, when you've got the advantage. And it all went down in a big stats sheet for the month. :damn:

[swimsalot]

People like this is why I've pretty much given up playing online. My opinion.
Look me up, I'll dive with ya any time!

And ML summed it up quite nicely.

[Kurushio]

People like this is why I've pretty much given up playing online. My opinion. Look me up, I'll dive with ya any time!

And ML summed it up quite nicely.

Thanks...I might do that. :yep:

[LuftWolf]

I have played games with many people from subsim, and I've never had a problem.

[swimsalot]

I have played games with many people from subsim, and I've never had a problem. Agree!
Gamespy for some reason seems to be where alot of "interesting" things happen. Don't know why.
ICQ is 249-548-432 by the way, look me up for a dive guys :)

[Three14]

Agree with ML and Goldorak here.
About exploiting such things, I know in 688 all kinds of exploits are used, for example after six years of multiplayer someone found you could "easely" evade torpedos, going all back emergencie, using High Freq sonar to follow the torps.
Also you can go 40 knts at the surface following shallow torpedos with your radar.
I don't think we should punish a diver for using a SLMM as a decoy, in war you use all you have to survive. It's not a cheat in my opinion and when you don't like what he is doing your free to look for a other diver.
As ML< I tested the SLMM as decoy, but the torps won't be spoofed.
Remember the Chinees (Worker) are restricted in there internet use bij the Chinees covernment, I wonder if that has something to do with the problem. cq LAG.

I figured out the all back thing a long time before -- actually, the true mechanism has to do with the CM programming in multiplayer. Going backwards isn't necessary at all, unless you really lacked confidence. I wrote something and sent it through my fleet when I discovered it (while trying to time how long it took for CM to expire), but I guess nobody thought it was very big or they didn't want to upset the play anymore than it already was (probably the former).

Broke the game for me. I kept playing because of the nice people, but the game itself lost a lot. It wasn't much a submarine game before that, and it was less afterwards. Fortunately, although I freely explained what I was doing and why it worked (and why some evasion tactics worked when slight variations didn't), not many people digested it and so only some basic tactics came out of it (like driving backwards).

[Three14]

Some random information:

I lived in China for awhile, and I'm actually involved with some cross-border research. I don't know if it bears on this, but we're doing something between Guangzhou and Texas and our pings are around 500ms. That's not great, but it's a sub game...

However, what is particularly bad between our two research centers is the packet loss. We don't have a good way to get around it, although our HK site connects to the US without problem. My guess, after looking at tracert, is that it's the Chinese backbone that is giving us trouble. We might try calling HK and connecting via dialup.

--

I haven't read Bluebook in awhile, but the SLMM tactic I remember (born in the 688 days) was to use the SLMM to blow up the incoming torps. I didn't find this method that useful, myself, since evasion was always very easy in that game, but blowing things up had other uses (like masking firing).

What did stick out about the Bluebook was that it involved tactics for a game. Some tactics were from real life that worked in the game (and some probably didn't but nobody knew for sure), but the best ones were for the game. So, in the game world, an SLMM is not metal. There is no water. The stuff on the screen in active is probably just randomly generated with a blip for real contacts (which explains why you could mark targets when you see nothing, but not mark nothing if the noise looked good). It may or may not register as a contact to torpedoes. If, in reality, an ADCAP torpedo could not differentiate between a WW2 era torpedo and a 300+ foot-long submarine, I'd say that somebody owes me a tax refund.

Anyway, it's a game, and there are different reasons to play. Playing to win, or get kills, is nice, but I would then not expect the "winning" way to play to correspond to a Tom Clancy (or even cheesier) novel.

[Kurushio]

Can we stop with the Tom Clancy bashing? :stare: He's my hero. :88)

[jason taylor]

I have no comment here. However I have been looking for this thread for a long time so I thought an easy way to mark it was to make an irrelevant post and look it up when I want to read more. A "sonobuoy" if you will.

[Pisces]

How about just using the search option on this forum. If everyone does this it sure is goint to clutter.

[jason taylor]

I didn't remember the threads title

[Pisces]

In that case, another option that is far easier than adding another post, is to add to your bookmarks in your browser.

Oh well, you got the point I'm sure.

[jason taylor]

In any case this whole thing seems to depend on whether it is viewed as a game or a simulation. If a game then it has set rules. If a sim, well in war there is no such thing as fighting fair(if you except basics like-"thou shalt not shoot shipwrecked sailors", etc).
It is obvious from history that nobody really knows what will happen. What if the real torpedo had a corresponding bug in it?
Moreover even if doctrine is wrong murphy's law must always be accounted for.
If the torpedo was not decoyed by the SLMM what did happen. Did it just cruise by merrily? Did it stop to sniff at the SLMM for half a second then move on. Did it change course near the SLMM at any time(in which case maybe it really was decoyed).