A neat little trick?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

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.

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! . 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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Orm

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.

[Three14]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Can we stop with the Tom Clancy bashing? He's my hero.