Time for me to agree with you!

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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/d...oad_games.html

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:

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

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.

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

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 :)