TAUniverse - Advanced cheating and bug exploitation

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 10 日 16:01

TAUniverse - Advanced cheating and bug exploitation.Pages (10): [1] 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page
TAUniverse (http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/index.php)

Advanced Strategies
(http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=33)
– Advanced cheating and bug exploitation.
(http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=11061)

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-02-2002 02:06 AM:
Advanced cheating and bug exploitation.
It has come to my attention that many of you don’t recognise when you have been
cheated. My new resolution is to define cheats so that the uninitiated can
recognise cheating.
Exploiting bugs in the game engine:
Sparking moho metal makers and solar panels. If a units costs a fraction in time
or resources to build yet returns full resource production, then, it is clearly
a cheat. Without completion of build or full cost of metal, a moho metal maker
will turn on and generate full metal production. This is accomplished by area
damage to the unit while it is being built. It is clearly cheating banned by the
CBL. Solar panels have the same bug but dont produce enough over the long term
to make this cheat worth while. Many clans, such as ISJX and Gnug openly support
this cheat with the justification that everyone does it.
Stuffing a factory. Many factories will allow units to travel inside of them.
This can allow you to jam a factory’s production or allocate more units to guard
a factory. This is not cheating.
Due to lag effects, units can be “cloned” between players. If two player’s
“.take” the units of a third team member at the same time, they may both get all
of his same units. If they do this by accident it is not cheating. If they share
units with the goal to get clones, they have cheated. Units that cost no time or
resource to build have been generated by cheating. By the way, clone factories
cannot produce units. One of the players will have destroy the duplicate
factories he “took”.
Some damage and capture partners’ Krogoths to clone them. This is a cheat that
exploits lag effects between players. It is cheating.
The range of Berthas and Buzzsaws can be extended to double range buy force
targeting close to the base of the cannon. This does not allow you to target
units at great distances accuratly but does confuse your opponent as to the
location of your cannon. I don’t consider this cheating because of the sacrifice
in accuracy, but many do. If people think it is unfair, don’t do it when you
play with them.
In a team game, when faced with defeat, some players will have their units go to
enemy base and then disconnect their network connection. This allows the units
to move into enemy base while reject screen is up and if ".take"en by partners,
gives them units which should be dead that, instead, are deep within the enemy
base. This is cheating by the person that pretends to drop from the game.
Grouping construction planes together and micromanaging them over metal deposits
to boost their yield by many times is an exploit of lag effects and is clearly
cheating. If that metal spot was supposed to yield 5 x metal, it would be
labeled as such.
Edge building and terrain exploits. Many players have studied maps so carefully
that they have found a bug in the map that will render units on that location
impervious to certain types of fire. This is different from the blocking effects
of terrain which are very fair and accurate. This is cheating if it gains unfair
advantage over an equal unit placed on another position on the map. This is hard
to explain but 2 Berthas firing from two positions on map, the one built in a
low spot on the edge may be impossible to hit with direct fire, yet the actual
terrain contour should not protect it in any way. If this is not cheating, it is
very lame.
Exploiting the edge of the map by moving units beyond it, like edge bombing, is
cheating. If a unit is purposefully positioned off the map where it cannot take
enemy fire, you are cheating. If it is off the map as an uncontrolled artifact
of a normal flight path, it is fair play.
Degrading your connection to exploit lag is cheating. Running other programs or
other computers over the same network connection will cause your incoming TA
packets to have to be retransmitted. This means delays in taking hits and damage
and finally the death of a unit. This is cheating if done knowing that you are
overloading your connection.
There is a way to make your nuke survive a one on one confrontation with an anti
nuke. This technique is cheating and will not be discussed further.
Using lightly armored fast units such as fleas and zippers in a lagging game,
because you know they will penetrate and survive far beyond their normal armor
level, is cheating.
Modifying units specs, line of sight, build time and cost are all cheats.
If it is questionable behavior, it is probably cheating. Most TA players are
smart enough to recognise it.
Peace in 2002!

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 02, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by NewKid on 01-11-2002 07:23 PM:

Let’s call it “Elvis rules” And let’s make it a standard… We should put a
number for each rule, so it’s easy to talk about it… the one about the Bertha
extended range IS cheating, as it doesn’t mimic reality, and then seems to be a
bug.

Some chicken! Some neck!

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 10 日 16:02

Posted by OneLoneWolf on 01-11-2002 07:26 PM:

Ho Hum

OneLoneWolf - Wolf’s Lair

ICQ #58741977

OneLoneWolf - Wolf’s Lair

ICQ #58741977

Posted by tau’ri01 on 01-12-2002 04:49 AM:

The bertha thing is not cheating, its as much cheating as the pelican thing not
being able to take hits from missile units. Its just something the unit can do.

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by TaGirl on 01-12-2002 09:43 AM:

when you are host, switching on cheats just before the start of the game. Twice
on Zone on the same day!

My fav units are dead Mavs

Posted by tau’ri01 on 01-12-2002 02:48 PM:

Oh god yes that is annoying… especially if you just see it and are thinking
what the ffff… as the game loads up. Thats a fun time to just press altf4 or
something… or if youre feeling cocky just annoyi the hell out of them by
using the half damage cheat :

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by OneLoneWolf on 01-12-2002 06:40 PM:

When they do that type in +IWin, End of game.

OneLoneWolf - Wolf’s Lair

ICQ #58741977

OneLoneWolf - Wolf’s Lair

ICQ #58741977

Posted by Screamer on 01-13-2002 05:49 AM:

Many clans, such as ISJX and Gnug openly support this cheat with the justification that everyone does it.

I think you'll find that Gnugs don't do it even if they were the ones to first publish it on the Gnug tips page..

Some damage and capture partners' Krogoths to clone them. This is a cheat that exploits lag effects between players.

Actually, this works because shared units are simply copied by the engine - the original units are removed by dealing 30000 damage to them. However, veteran Krogs have more than 30000 armor. It is cheating though, agreed.

Agreed on that overshooting ballistic weapons is fine. It takes a heck of a lot
of micro for often questionable results.

Exploiting the edge of the map by moving units beyond it, like edge bombing, is cheating.

I used to think so - nowadays, I tell people to stay away from it on small maps. On maps like PD, it's your own fault for building so close to the edge as to be vulnerable when you have plenty of space to use to protect yourself. On maps like GoW or C2C, I hate it, there's absolutely no way to work against it.

I agree with OLW about people that enable cheats in the battleroom.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by BLITZ_Molloy on 01-13-2002 10:38 AM:

I love off screen bombing on GoW and C2C. It takes alot of micro to do so like
the Bertha overshoot I think It’s fine. I’m just probably biased because it’s so
much fun to do.

.::…::ucs::… …::blitz::…::.

Altered Beast | UberCrack Shack | BLITZ Clan
Latest Annihilarity: Annihilarity: Weapon Inspection II

Posted by Mechcommander on 01-13-2002 06:12 PM:

HHHHmmmmmm… Well, thanks for telling me. Now I know about many more cheats.
Mechcommander laghs evilly Just jokin’ I never noticed any of these. Thanks
for the update.

I haven’t failed, I’ve found 10,000 ways that don’t work.
-Thomas Edison

it’s fun to attempt the impossible.

I haven’t failed, I’ve found 10,000 ways that don’t work.
-Thomas Edison
It’s fun to attempt the impossible: Realism be damned!

Posted by Masonary on 01-14-2002 04:03 AM:

Agree with malloy on the edge bombing. I love to do it with roach bombing. It
takes a fair bit of skill to get the roach to fly off the screen and detonate
where you want. Having said that, bombers flying off the screen, im not too sure
about, as that isnt really a matter of skill as luck as to where the pathfinding
of the bombers takes them

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

I Destroy, Therefor I Am [tag]

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

which is worse, confusion or apathy? who knows, who cares

Posted by Screamer on 01-14-2002 05:45 AM:

I find it doesn’t involve much luck, I’ve seen players who with a little bit of
practice could easily make the bombers come into the map not only where they
wanted but even at the angle they wanted.

I hate that it makes things a simple matter of time on small maps; once your
opponent had enough time to build a bunch of bombers, there’s no way you can do
anything against his bomb run period.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Masonary on 01-15-2002 03:15 AM:

Out of interest how do you get all your bombers to fly off the map. Ive tried
like hell and I cant do it.

Is it a case of setting them to do a bombing run at the edge of the map, and
then when they overshoot, give them a new target. Or is there somthing more
complicated

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

I Destroy, Therefor I Am [tag]

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

which is worse, confusion or apathy? who knows, who cares

Posted by VeZoZ on 01-15-2002 05:19 AM:

LOL I guess I’m a big cheater I use a lot of the game engine bugs to my
advantage! I don’t consider it cheating and never will

Owner Of Ultimate-Strategy and Ultimate-Gaming Network

Some people think I’m an idiot. I disagree, but idiocy is subjective–so they
may well be right. With this in mind, take everything I post with a grain of
salt, eh

Posted by Greybeard1 on 01-15-2002 07:00 AM:

Out of interest how do you get all your bombers to fly off the map. Ive tried like hell and I cant do it.

3 ooooooooooooooooooooo 4

ooooooooooooooooooooo enemy

2

ooooooooooooooo1

where the left side of the screen is the left, and the line is the top of the
map, waypoint the bombers at points 1 thru 4 then attack the enemy. the bombers
will stay off the map for most of their flight from 2-3 and 3-4… (ignore the
o’s)

[This message has been edited by Greybeard1 (edited January 15, 2002).]

Posted by Screamer on 01-17-2002 04:25 AM:

I usually use a patrol point - tell the bombers to move away from the edge of
the screen, then when they have some distance from it tell them to patrol to a
point right at the edge of the map. A few moments after they’ve gone off edge,
you tell them to move to some other spot along that edge of the map. They’ll
stay out of the screen on their way there.

Just send them off screen and watch them come back a few times, it will give you
an idea of how long they take to turn around and fly back onto screen. If you
wait about half that time before telling them to move somewhere else, they’ll
stay as far away from the map edge as possible.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by LordBeek on 01-17-2002 03:38 PM:

LOL.

How can sparking a metal maker be cheating?

BOTH players can do it! Its just whether or not a player choses to (or can) do
it. Just because you decide that its beyond your “ethics” doesnt care for me.
Since you have that advantage to, why dont you use it?

Aww because its “not right”. Well its war. I will use any advantage i can get in
the game engine to win. I suggest you do to. It may improve your game.

Oh and guess what, ALL of the best players, or even half decent players will use
these ‘bugs’. They are part of the game, not cheats. Stop complaining.

There is a way to make your nuke survive a one on one confrontation with an anti nuke. This technique is cheating and will not be discussed further.

LOL! You show me that then. Plz. Because i dont know it, and if it is, then one
player is cleverer than the other. If you tell me it, i wish to use it. Could be
quite handy, for me, and any other player that would like a useful tip.

Using lightly armored fast units such as fleas and zippers in a lagging game, because you know they will penetrate and survive far beyond their normal armor level, is cheating

If you build Zippers then thats really lame. They are awful units. Fleas get
killed with one shot, and do minimal damage. What effect do you honestly thing
they have?

If it is questionable behavior, it is probably cheating. Most TA players are smart enough to recognise it.

No, most dumb TA players that have just been owned by a decent player that used
a bug, complain. Why dont you learn the tricks that make the good players stand
out, and stop complaining. You will never stop these bugs.

If this topic was based on ways of ridding the game of real cheats then id be
glad to help. Instabuild trainers, and the like should be banned. Its such a
waste of time talking about these subjects, this should be in strategy basics
anyway. This is not advanced, more like less than basic.

Bleh, i wrote this cos im semi drunk, and my friend was worried he has been
cheating. I assured him it isnt. Please guys, i hope any newer players reading
this dont get taken in by the suggestions in 1st post.

If you want to be a better player, use the tricks, follow the masters demos, and
be clever. Battles are won thhat way.

 Where is Peter when you need him

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

[This message has been edited by LordBeek (edited January 17, 2002).]

im good
15 min bt

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 01-18-2002 03:14 PM:

Sorry but WTF is sparking???
And whilst we are on the subject of cheating bugs can u all explain them in
detail coz i dont understand a word you guys are saying and i’m fifteen for
christ sakes.

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by tcbw on 01-18-2002 03:45 PM:

Most of the stuff is described at the GNUG’s site.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/gnugs/gtotd.html

It would be less of a problem if everyone knows about the TA engine flaws but
that’s not true for new players.

And some of the bugs (like the Krogoth cloning) just bypass the economic
constraints that hinder TA to become a stupid ‘take 1000 super units and let
them fight each other’ game.
You can still have a lot of super units in TA but you are supposed to build up a
strong economy for that while not neglecting your war efforts at the same time.
Such kind of cheating just renders the well balanced need for figthing and
economic skills in TA useless. Same goes with MMM sparking.

– tcbw

404 - PeterC may have stolen this page

[This message has been edited by tcbw (edited January 19, 2002).]

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

Posted by tau’ri01 on 01-18-2002 04:50 PM:

hmmmm. i believe i know what the guy is on about when he says a nuke can survive
a one on one encounter with an antinuke… tho i know of a method, its not so
much a case of survivng an encounter… more getting past the antinuke
altogether… i wont say anymore, because i basically dont want it used by huge
numbers of ppl against me, but i wouldnt consider it cheating any more then any
other tactic in the game… it is perfectly justified, tho gives no counter
measure at all. But if it works, it rocks

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 01-19-2002 12:17 PM:

what do you do? like send it with a stunner?

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by tau’ri01 on 01-19-2002 03:40 PM:

no, that is silly, cos its just that two antinukes would take them down istead
of one… and even one, the blast if it hit the nuke might take out t eh
stunner or whatever… erm, does anyone want to know this? cos if the
general opinion is that this shouldnt be known, im not going to say…

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by Screamer on 01-19-2002 03:45 PM:

The MMM sparking is cheating, period. Most non-programmers will probably never
agree. Who cares.

Let me put it this way. If shooting a unit while it is being built in factory
caused it to get unstuck from the build pad and be able to fire (which is
equivalent to what MMM sparking does, in principle) - would you spark your
Flashes to have one in your opponent’s base in 40 seconds? If every unit was
sparkable - would anyone even play the game anymore?

How about multiple reclaiming? I can do it with non-plane Const, you know. You
can easily multi-reclaim a single L1 Kbot factory on GoW to get 3x the metal
which pays the Adv right there. Double-reclaim the Adv and the BB is paid for on
the spot. What fun.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 10 日 16:02

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-19-2002 08:08 PM:

Getting something for nothing- defines cheating. Lord Beek, If you are so good
cant you win w/o this lame crap? Try playing with 250 units like god intended. I
never knew you could get multiple reclaim credit from reclaiming plants. Argh, I
have been cheated by that too. Some here obviously know the nuke trick and it is
clearly cheating.

I guess Beek would not mind if i used my programming skills to hack the demo
recorder engine and see all his stuff. I guess he would think that was fair.
Beek cheats and does not know it LOL.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by ID_Zeymatisold on 01-19-2002 09:10 PM:

i allways thought that multi reclaim only worked for starting metal on a map and
not structures built by ones own self?

Posted by tau’ri01 on 01-20-2002 09:40 AM:

hey zey! dont see you here much… anyhoo, the nuke trick, if it even works,
as stated by UFO_ruger is to carry along a strea\m of atlas carried erasers
along the nukes intended flight path. the antinuke wont pick it up, and it gets
thro… how is that cheating? It is cunning, btu not cheatring… assuming
it works, ive never tried it. But that blatently isnt cheating, so what are you
guys thinking of?

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by Screamer on 01-20-2002 10:08 AM:

Nope, the radar jammer doesn’t conceal nukes.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by LordBeek on 01-20-2002 10:48 AM:

Cheating is something which gives ONE player a direct advantage over the other.

If you dont feel its “right” to spark a MMM, then dont. Just dont label everyone
a cheater because they chose to do it. Its in the game, (as a bug), and you cant
get rid of it. Live with it, learn to use it, and play the game well.

Again, EVERYONE can do it. Its there for everyone to use.

I regard myself as a fair player. I hate cheaters that user instabuilds to give
them a lame advantage. Ask every half decent player if theyve ever sparked a
MMM. They probably have.

How dare you call me a cheater. That is one of the lowest comments you can make
to any fair player.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

im good
15 min bt

Posted by DOGGY on 01-21-2002 07:27 AM:

hmm, u can only multireclaim rocks and trees/plants, not wrecks or acitve units
offscreen bombing/ roaching isnt cheating: it is not a bug and is programmed to
be that way.
i dont really know how to block antinukes and/or dont even get them to launch,
but i have some ideas how it could be done, the 1 possibility is just a dumb
bug, the other is legal.
and no, instantbuildcheats are not so bad, not at all, they are easy to find
out. i really hate cheats that just change ta a lil bit, like everything 10%
buildtime improved. it is almost impossible to find out, and who knows, mayb the
guy u always play (and u lose against) is one of them. it is an unfair adv.
most bugs that are really used (who has ever cloned a kroggie?) are not 1 sided
(like the longrange bb, the mmm sparkling), actually they add some nice aspects
to the game. as does the multireclaiming ( but imho its really unfair), because
u cant use ur metal in stones instantly, u gotta wait till u have enough cons,
and wait till they are placed right, and dont forget that the cons cost metal,
metal u cant use for a while. But anyway, if a rock is 100 metal, than it
shouldnt give 600 metal (or more if u use conairs), just a silly bug and
shouldnt be used.

Posted by pi_3.141592654 on 01-21-2002 07:37 AM:

heh, knew about all of those except the nuke thing…I wonder how thats done.

Since sparking MMM’s seems to the controversial thing right now, I want to bring
up something…

How about if your flying a hawk (or any other attack plane for that matter) and
see that your opponent is building a MMM…one tactic is to spark THEIR MMM
because they might now be ready for the energy drain…and there is no way to
turn the MMM off until it is fully built.

I had that happen to me…man that sucked.

I agree with LordBeek, if every player can utilize it, then it isn’t an unfair
advantage. Therefore, not cheating. It may be underhanded, mean, floured
up…whatever, but still fair since they have the ability to do it also.

[This message has been edited by pi_3.141592654 (edited January 21, 2002).]

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-21-2002 12:10 PM:

I blame your parents for your inability to differentiate right from wrong. Let
me explain. When you get the benefits of a unit or resource or radar ,etc.
without paying the build time, metal, energy to produce it, you have cheated. It
is that simple. GETTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING- defines cheating. Just because
the info to cheat is located in a public place does not give you license to
cheat. Just because others have cheated you, you are not suddenly allowed to
cheat. With Beek’s justification, as long as a trainer is a published program on
the web, then all players should have the right to download the trainer(whatever
type) and use it against their opponents. I realise that many of you have been
cheating in a variety of game engine exploits for so long it is difficult to
admit that most of your wins over the last years were not valid. You need
understand that things like multi reclaim were not intended by the designers and
are a form of resource cheat. The fact that one cheating technique is more
visible to the victim than another, does not make it any different than the
subtile hpi editing or DirectX hacking. Jammers in Atlases or accompanied
missles, are not the nuke cheat to which I referred. I feel sorry for all of you
who trust your own friends and skills so little that you feel you must cheat by
generating resources for free. You will never enjoy the feeling of beating your
opponent in a clean game, or even better, when you know your opponent had the
edge of cheating.

As far as shooting the moho to cause a energy drain, this is not cheating
because there is no way to determine intent. You may be shooting it to destroy
the mmm, or the resulting shot may be a deflection from targeting other units.
In this case, you must give the attacker the benefit of the doubt and assume he
intended to kill mmm or stop its completion.

I also want to make it clear that I do not think all bug exploits are cheating.
I think keeping bomb bay doors open on bombers is technique. I think the
sacrifice of extended bertha ranging accuracy gives it limited advantage and is
technique.

From polling, I found that about half the players dont know these cheats and all
of them feel cheated when they find out.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited January 21, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by Screamer on 01-21-2002 03:47 PM:

I shall check whether multireclaiming live units is possible.

It definitely has to be possible to multireclaim wrecks because they’re
features, ie for the engine they’re the same things as rocks and trees. A Kbot
factory wreck is what - 480 metal? 480 x 4 is still more than the 600ish a live
factory returns on reclaiming. (Don’t quote me on the exact figures - but the
principle is clear I hope.)

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Abe on 01-22-2002 05:51 AM:

I can think of 4 different ways to beat the anti-nuke before, or while, sedning
the nuke.

2 of them has to do with map design and the game engine, they can be abused on
some maps, but not all.
1 nuke trick is an exploit of the engine, how the missiles behave…kinda.
The last trick is not really an exploit, but abuses reload rate and lag factors,
so that the antimissiles won磘 be able to work like they should.

Hard to describe this stuff without giving away tips on how to cheat

In any case, the only “cheat” I ever see in regular games is the Moho sparking.
Saving a few minutes by sparking and not finish building, isn磘 realy a big
deal. As long as all the player agree to do/not do it, it磗 all fair.

I don磘 know how off screen bombing can be called cheating, but that磗 a matter
of opinion I guess.

Since Pelvis seems to have the objective truth about what磗 cheating and not,
what would you say about :

Force fire rockets or missiles at the edge of a mountainside, some will fly
over and fall down at aprox 3x the range, often in your enemy磗 base. Used to be
popular on the Pass.
Force fire depth charges and torpedoes to hit units that arn磘 in, but rather
above, the water. Pelicans and hovers f.ex.
Nano shields. I mean, there磗 not even a building, just the outline, the
contour of something that hasn磘 been built yet. Still, it blocks enemy fire.
Fibbers. They are bugged units, and can be abused in many ways. Wouldn磘 just
building them be considered cheating?

There are many more “cheats” or exploits used. But I always find the golden rule
to be that, anything agreed on between the playes goes, and everything beyond
that isn磘 acceptable. I磛e compared flying bombs from LAN games, with internet
games, and rarely use them in online games after that. A lagged player can
easily detonate a roach in the middle of a GoW island, before the defenders can
shoot it down. Don磘 care if it磗 cheating or not, it磗 not acceptable.

<–Abe–>

Posted by LordBeek on 01-22-2002 06:07 AM:

Do you realise that sparking a MMM is a disadvantage aswell as an advantage? The
constant resource drain of energy cannot be stopped. You cannot turn the sparked
MMM off.

Since it is part of the game (the original game, that was released in the
shops), i will use any little tricks i can do in the game, to give me an
advantage. It is nothing to do with a hack, a 3rd party mod or anything.

I will park flashes in plants, slice 8 seconds off nuke launch times by stopping
it from fireing at the last second. I will use the “bug” of the pelican by
distracting AA defenses on a small island, then fly over a roach bomb or two,
with little chance of being hit and causing maximum damage. I dont roach bomb
with lag, since i prefer guarantees that the AA wont fire.

These tricks are part of the game. They were discovered long ago, and used. Just
because they werent intended to be part of the game doesnt mean they cant be
used. BOTH players can do it, if they have the knowledge. If one choses to
decide its cheating, and doesnt wish to do it, fair enough.

Just dont condemn other players who always play with good sportsmanship and
fairness, but play to win, knowing all the ins and outs of the game.

Oh yes, Rocket Jumps in Quake? They are a trick of the game, but since it gives
a player an unfair advantage of better jumps, then that must be cheating to,
according to this logic.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

[This message has been edited by LordBeek (edited January 22, 2002).]

im good
15 min bt

Posted by NewKid on 01-22-2002 07:12 AM:

“It’s war, so everything is ok if it helps to win” is just a childish view…
It’s not war, it’s a game. A game is played for fun, and has rules.
I like wargames because it’s realistic, and I love TA because it’s very
realistic. Exploiting bugs just tend to make the game less realistic.
“Skills” means then “bugs knowledge” instead of “strategic thinking”.
Spakling MMM is bug exploitation, if both players have agree it was ok, then
it’s ok, but it breaks the realism of the game, wich is its main interest.
I think there are (at least) 2 kind of players : the ones who just want to win,
no matter the way, and the ones who want to have fun, win or loss. The firsts
think “everything is ok, including bug or lag exploitation”, the others would
prefer no bugs in this game… and no lag at all.

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Screamer on 01-22-2002 11:08 AM:

So Beek, you’ll multireclaim too?

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by JoesGeo on 01-22-2002 12:11 PM:

I dont really use bugs. I dont use trainers either. I think cheating is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Warchicken
I believe there is an evil spirit living in my computer, trying to drive me
mad.

Yes, I have that problem too. That spirit is referred to as Windows.

Posted by LordBeek on 01-22-2002 12:23 PM:

Lol Screamer, not every single trick maybe . Ive never done that, my mind doesnt
think of that bug when reclaiming rocks. And i dont spark every time. Again when
my mind is actually working.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

im good
15 min bt

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-22-2002 02:40 PM:

“Do you realise that sparking a MMM is a disadvantage aswell as an advantage?
The constant resource drain of energy cannot be stopped. You cannot turn the
sparked MMM off.”(Beek)

This is a popular misconception by moho sparking cheats. The sparker can just
complete one of his 15 partial built mohos and turn that one off when he is on
the margin of enough energy. He can tie up a few lev 1 construction units
nursing the 15 partial built moho metal makers without ever spending the time or
metal on them during the game. This becomes a 3:1 resource advantage after the
second fusion if in a one to one race with a player that does not cheat with
this bug.

Cheaters will have to find some other justification besides energy drain and the
effort of the spark.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by silentak47 on 01-22-2002 03:15 PM:

so if he loses a fusion and can no longer support the many moho’s HE CANT TURN
OFF then wouldn’t that negate that advantage?

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.” -
God

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 PM.Pages (10): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright ?Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2004.
@Copyright 2001-2004 Nexus Entertainment, LLC.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 10 日 16:02

TAUniverse - Advanced cheating and bug exploitation.Pages (10): ?1 [2] 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page

TAUniverse (http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/index.php)

Advanced Strategies
(http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=33)
– Advanced cheating and bug exploitation.
(http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=11061)

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-22-2002 03:20 PM:

Silent , he could then dgun or shoot some other way, his mmm partials, until
they were destroyed. But, hopefully he finally completed enough mmm to just turn
some off. Not much of a loss, as he never invested much in them anyway.

Let me put it another way: If a person instant builds 5 buzzsaws with his
trainer, and fires them all at once with only 5 solars to power them, he will
suffer the disadvantage of not being able to dgun. Did he cheat? Yes. Was his
cheating a disadvantage in this scenario? Yes. Does the disadvantage make it
okay for him to cheat this way? NO.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited January 22, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by estrella on 01-22-2002 03:45 PM:

As member of ISJX i like to say that we think using of bugs is cheating if not
everyone uses them.
We agree on it before the game.
We play many PD Marathon game and we use the moho Sparking bug yes, the other we
dont use.

But me myself will never use it I think it’s a form of cheating. The nuke bug
really sucks really because you can’t defend it (if you have build 1 anti)
But what about buggy units like pels should we ban them ? I don’t think so, just
deal with it but don’t complain about it if you didn’t amke an agreement about
the rules.

ISJX_V4C

-= Estrella =-
webmaster of estrella - TA Designers.com and T.A.U.E.C.
(The largest database of 3rd party uni

-= Estrella =-
TA Designers
The Joined Tribe
TAUIP
World Domination

Posted by JoesGeo on 01-22-2002 05:10 PM:

Well Yah. Agree on it beforehand. I dont use the bugs, howerver it is part of
the game engine so it is not cheating I believe. I think it is more of an
obscure j/k rule.

quote:

Originally posted by Warchicken
I believe there is an evil spirit living in my computer, trying to drive me
mad.

Yes, I have that problem too. That spirit is referred to as Windows.

Posted by Offspring on 01-22-2002 06:29 PM:

Ok, instead of MMM sparking, can you not equally spark MM. Remember those? The
higher-tech mines that nobody has used since the invention of the MMM, except on
metal maps. They cost 1.5K metal to build, cost you a temporary reduction in
income (since you don’t have a mine on that spot) and really aren’t worth it. If
they could be sparked, they suddenly pay for their own construction.

Are any of these “cheats” fair? Yes and No. They are unfair when one person uses
them and the other doesn’t, or doesn’t know their opponent is. They’re only fair
when both players agree on their use of the “cheats”.

Do they make TA less fun? A definate yes in my opinion. They unbalance a lot of
the well-defined nature of the game. The pelican bug in particular springs to
mind, as one that almost forces players to use pelicans and have to build
certain kinds of defenses, just to hit the pelicans, when the firepower
available from your regular defenses would have been enough to decimate the
pelicans.

The more and more I find bugs and errors in TA that can be used to an unfair
advantage, the more I wish that we could patch them all up and get on with the
game, the way it’s intended to be played.

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by JoesGeo on 01-22-2002 11:53 PM:

Yes I wish we could fix bugs in TA as well. That would make the game fairer.
What about when a map sparks a solar? I have had that happen. In the last CC
mission as arm i had a meteor shower spark my solar. Wierd.

quote:

Originally posted by Warchicken
I believe there is an evil spirit living in my computer, trying to drive me
mad.

Yes, I have that problem too. That spirit is referred to as Windows.

Posted by Screamer on 01-23-2002 07:19 AM:

Solar sparking is really funny if you play 0k 0k games…

If you people all wish TA had at least some of its bugs fixed - why does hardly
anyone use Switeck’s TA Bugfix?

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by NewKid on 01-23-2002 07:40 AM:

I don’t use it cause I don’t konw it. Didn’t find it right now. It fixes bugs if
the host has it, or both players must have it or …?
Also : wtf is the flakker bug? How to make a nuke survive an antinuke? How can I
detect if the other guy uses those bugs? Is there somewhere and list of all
known bugs?

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by DOGGY on 01-23-2002 10:21 AM:

those are the lil tricks that expert use to win games they are gonna lose. u
have a flakker? and landunits are coming? just guard an attacked unit with the
flakker, and it will return fire, very easy, huh? and its very effective, but…
flakkers are expensive, and it includes alot of micromanagement, and it doesnt
work good, and flakkers are normally not on the place where the action is
happening.

nukes are just like merl-rockets, go on and figure out ( dont really know about
antinukes, but i think they are rated same)
catching a bugger… watch the rec man, i hope u arent blind

Posted by Abe on 01-23-2002 10:26 AM:

New kid; I don磘 want to inform people on how to cheat for obvious reasons.
Detecting a nuke cheat is very simple however, if you get hit by nukes even if
you got anti missles, something is wrong…

The bugfix is a great patch, but it seems that all TA mods and 3rd party patches
don磘 know when to stop.
Fixing the moho bug is one thing, lowering the altitude on pelicans so they can
be hit by missiles is questionable and before you know it the patch starts
messing around with accuracy on certain weapons or “fix” the game balance.

XTA, Uberhack, unit packs etc, they always go too far and never become standard.
Already you see some people disabling TA Hook because they don磘 like the
features.

PS: You need a flakker vehicle for that bug, can磘 guard with static defense.

[This message has been edited by Abe (edited January 23, 2002).]

<–Abe–>

Posted by Screamer on 01-23-2002 10:53 AM:

I’ve repeatedly been told by various people that they consider every single
change in TA Bugfix valid - except the Pelican fix. There is no change that
feels anywhere as dramatic as this in all of TA Bugfix. (Maybe the fixed Core
Adv Conbot which no longer spaces out all the time, but I can’t imagine anyone
would complain about that.)

And I think most of complainers haven’t tried playing with fixed Pelicans - it
didn’t go from godly to crap in one easy fix, you know. They’re still quite well
worth their price. Have you given it a shot?

XTA and Uberhack are expressly out to change the game - they don’t even pretend
to retain balance. Personally I have found XTA to be very, very enjoyable, if
very different from OTA in some aspects.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Abe on 01-23-2002 11:06 AM:

Yeah, I have tried it. But as I said, it doesn磘 become standard because not
everyone will agree on the defenitionof “bug”. And unless it磗 standard, it
won磘 be used.

<–Abe–>

Posted by LordBeek on 01-23-2002 12:05 PM:

I tried Bugfix and thought it was impressive. Unfortunatly, most of the TA
community stick with OTA and dont touch mods and the like. Thus i stick with OTA
for now.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

im good
15 min bt

Posted by JoesGeo on 01-23-2002 12:23 PM:

Well mods have kept TA alive.

quote:

Originally posted by Warchicken
I believe there is an evil spirit living in my computer, trying to drive me
mad.

Yes, I have that problem too. That spirit is referred to as Windows.

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-23-2002 01:06 PM:

Just becuase you get hit by a nuke, does not mean someone exploited the cheat
that allows nukes to get by anti- nukes. Severe lag will render an anti-nuke
ineffective. To help in this respect I will list the anti-nukes in order of
effectiveness:

1.hedgehog
2.scarab
3.Core ant-inuke silo
4.Arm anti-nuke silo

You need two layers of anti nukes and should not group them all together. If a
nuke gets through, you dont want to lose all your anti-nukes to that one unfair
blast. Lag will cause nukes to have no effect or less effect much of the time.

There is no way to detect the cheating I alluded to earlier related to getting
your nuke by anti- nukes.

Have you also noticed that if you have a team partner with anti-nukes near you
that they may shoot down your own nukes? I am not sure if this is caused by lag
or not.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited January 23, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 10 日 16:02

Posted by freak11 on 01-23-2002 02:18 PM:

I’d just like to say I’m not even interested in playing OTA as it stands
anymore, multi-player or not. (It would help for MP if I had a better
computer…) There are too many bugs that I just can’t overlook, esp having
played Bugfix and seen the difference it makes. I guess I’ll never understand
peoples’ objection to the Pel fix. There are about as many junk units in Bugfix
as OTA (i.e. too many), but the Pel is not one of them.

Posted by LordBeek on 01-23-2002 02:27 PM:

Actually i think u`ll find that the Core Fortitude is worse than Arms anti-nuke.

The fortitude is much more likely to jam.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

im good
15 min bt

Posted by JoesGeo on 01-23-2002 03:28 PM:

Where can I get bugfix?

quote:

Originally posted by Warchicken
I believe there is an evil spirit living in my computer, trying to drive me
mad.

Yes, I have that problem too. That spirit is referred to as Windows.

Posted by freak11 on 01-23-2002 05:45 PM:

I’m not sure right now. 1.6b8 is expected any day now I think. You can check the
TA Bugfix forum here.

Posted by Screamer on 01-23-2002 06:57 PM:

www.tauniverse.com/switeck/ - when Switeck uploads it.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by NewKid on 01-24-2002 06:43 AM:

mmh, bad link… Just a page with a link to itself…

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Superior on 01-27-2002 11:26 PM:

Well the only thing we can do to avoid conflicts with fellow TA players is to
ask them in the battle room - “Are you going to use MMM sparking, Krogy cloning
etc.” If we cant find a way that will make us both happy then we just dont play

its that simple.
The only ta ‘cheat’ I use is the artillery cheat only on Intimidators, but as
cavedog said
"it’s not a bug, its a feature’.
Not all units have that soo called ‘bug’. The Arm Anaconda doesn’t have a bigger

range when you tell it to fire in front of it it just fires there
I believe that this ‘bug’ was put in TA on purpose cause just like in real life
you may
try force a gun’s limits and gaining range at the cost of accuracy (accuracy
owns anyways).

Pelvis your right no cheating makes TA a lot more fun to play and win-win-win.

Intergalactic Core Legion

NNN_Newsbot3> I am orange
X_VeNoM> thats not orange thats brown
NNN_Newsbot3> 12 week muzzle says it’s orange
X_VeNoM> Venom says it’s orange
NNN_Newsbot3>

Posted by Superior on 01-27-2002 11:30 PM:

<-------- I really hate this little pepper flying around my head…DIE DIE

Intergalactic Core Legion

NNN_Newsbot3> I am orange
X_VeNoM> thats not orange thats brown
NNN_Newsbot3> 12 week muzzle says it’s orange
X_VeNoM> Venom says it’s orange
NNN_Newsbot3>

Posted by NewKid on 01-28-2002 02:16 PM:

Maybe an application of the concept of indirect fire for heavy artillery…

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 01-30-2002 06:08 AM:

Abe wanted to consider each of these tactics as whether they are cheats.

Force fire rockets or missiles at the edge of a mountainside, some will fly
over and fall down at aprox 3x the range, often in your enemy磗 base. Used to be
popular on the Pass.

Loss of accuracy makes the above similar to extended ranging.

Force fire depth charges and torpedoes to hit units that arn磘 in, but rather
above, the water. Pelicans and hovers f.ex.

In real life a commander can control whether ordinance explodes on impact or by
proximity. You seem to have the same choice in the physics model of the TA
engine. Not many RTS games have such awesome options. It seems to be justice
dealt from the TA “bug” gods that pelicans are hit when crossing the path of a
torpedo.

Nano shields. I mean, there磗 not even a building, just the outline, the
contour of something that hasn磘 been built yet. Still, it blocks enemy fire.

I am stumped on this one. I may fall back to my opinion about intent. That would
be the benefit of the doubt that the commander intended to build metal storage
at the particular place and time while under attack. My stomach turns at the
logic of this. My guess is that this is fair because the action is so basic to
the game.

Fibbers. They are bugged units, and can be abused in many ways. Wouldn磘 just
building them be considered cheating?

Explain the “bug” in the fibber. They are very unfair units but I don’t
understand the aspect of a bug related to the unit. Core should really have
fibbers to match arm or the unit should be removed. I use fibbers on opponents
that lag badly or annoy me some other way.

Many units can target fibbers by way of the mini map or on patrol. If they hide
an attacking or reclaiming unit, that unit can be countered by guarding the unit
which is being harmed. Autotargeting facility will also counter them, albiet
expensively.

Thanks Abe, for bringing up the nano shield. When I first saw that technique , I
felt like the designers didn’t intend that sort of use.

One player stopped using roach bombs because of the difference between a LAN
game and the lag of an online game. If you follow this ethical standard, you
will not be using fleas, zippers, freakers, flashes, peewees, mavericks or any
aircraft in online games. I think this standard may be too strict. My roach
bombs never do as much damage as they should on GOW, but I use them sparingly.

Distraction my be more effective in lagged games. I use a technique called
“peeper bouncing” where I have a group of peepers patrol back and forth over a
line of defenders. If you set it up correctly, the defenders will kill a few of
the peepers but a few surviving peepers will just cause the defenders to rotate
and never fire at them. You can then fly other units over the line of defenders
without taking much damage. Opponents that notice this scream about it. My
justification is that it is technique and not a bug. Lag induced for sure. This
only works on a narrow defender line and not a grid array so it is easily
countered.

Many reasonable and well meaning players use many of the cheats I have described
because the winning edge is so seductive. You lose a few games because your
opponents use these tricks and you feel you must match them. I wanted to find a
simple measure to make it clear to everyone how to recognise a cheat. I will
repeat: Getting something for nothing(or almost nothing) - defines cheating.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited January 30, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 10 日 16:03

Posted by Screamer on 01-30-2002 10:37 AM:

Nanoshielding is perfectly fine for two reasons: a) the unit only has a fraction
of its health equal to the fraction of its cost that you paid for it so far and
b) it’s far from free in terms of micro.

It’s the same thing as f.ex driving your Samsons between enemy Samsons and your
own structures to block the missiles.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Masonary on 02-01-2002 06:32 PM:

I agree that it is fair, and i do it, metal storage to protect comm for example,
but i think the point is that whilst the structure is being built it is only
supposed to be a cloud of gass, and therefor shouldnt stop a projectile.

I could be wrong, but i think that is the gist of what a building under
construction is

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

which is worse, confusion or apathy? who knows, who cares

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

which is worse, confusion or apathy? who knows, who cares

Posted by Bort on 02-01-2002 08:25 PM:

Well, not necessarily. While the building is under construction, the atoms are
being assembled so they are there they are just being arranged. So technically,
they’re in the way (once the structure is far enough in b/c structures low to
the ground allow weapons fire over them and if they hit them while they’re low
to the ground it’s usually b/c the shell hit the ground where the structure
being built is) just not completely organized.

“I’m not lazy. It’s that I just dont care.” - Office Space

Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems. - Homer Simpson

“I’m not lazy. It’s that I just dont care.” - Office Space

Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems. - Homer Simpson

Posted by Switeck on 02-02-2002 08:38 AM:

Lag shielding occurs when trying to bomb something surrounded by tall structures
like metal storages or wind generators.

Even if you do a million damage to a wind gen, until the other player gets that
damage information it will continue to block shots. Then it will instantly
disappear without a corpse or debris from the combined overkill.

It’s fair because its an unavoidable side-effect of internet gaming. This is yet
another reason why playing on a big LAN is better, if you can.

However, there is also the TA Demo Recorder’s ability to render units immune to
damage for 3 seconds from the moment they first appear. This is REALLY handy if
trying to keep alive a unit under enemy fire. You place a wind gen in front of
it, and it will block any and all fire passing through that spot because it is
completely invulnerable for 3 seconds. (You even get a little extra out of that
because the other player won’t get the message that your shield is gone till the
data can go in the other direction.)

Nano shields are otherwise fair in skirmish and LAN games because of how units
are built. A strong force-field is errected around the unit’s build area and
nanobots are sprayed into it to assume the unit’s form. It’s that field that
blocks shots rather than the still gooey innards of the unit.

Posted by Screamer on 02-02-2002 02:55 PM:

(You even get a little extra out of that because the other player won't get the message that your shield is gone till the data can go in the other direction.)

Sorry Swi but you're wrong there.

The invulnerability is not achieved by any communicaton - it simply happens
because your recorder prevents your TA from receiving any damage packets for
newly built units until they are older than 3 seconds. After the 3 seconds are
up your recorder stops filtering - so you don’t get even a microsecond more than
that, regardless of how badly lagged a game is.

Remember also that 3 seconds is very short. If you’re nanoshielding in a
Guardian duel, you can hardly take advantage of it, in fact you may actually end
up spending more metal on the nanoshield (because the Windmill/Storage only gets
killed with the second shot, not right away). I think the fact that this feature
prevents loss of buildqueues to be such a huge benefit that any impact it has on
nanoshielding is discardable as a minor annoyance at best.

About the only time it makes a noticable difference is when trying to kill a
shipyard with Skeeters - the nanolathe frame in the yard will soak up a lot of
damage directed at the otherwise nimble shipyard frame.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

[This message has been edited by Screamer (edited February 02, 2002).]

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 02-02-2002 03:28 PM:

Ok, i know this is a bit old but going back to Anti-Nukes jamming and nukes not
doing any damage due to lag, say your opp had a nuke silo up and reay and
building before you had even thought of building an Anti-N, could you stop a
nuke by grouping a small group of Flashes and force-firing them at the ground
near them, would it cause enough lag to render the nuke a dud?

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-02-2002 10:06 PM:

Annihilator- Yes- I posted a guide titled “Bask in the lag” here in this forum.
If an administrator can find it and repost, it outlines all sorts of lame
techniques.

In your case, The probability of the nuke failing would go way up if you did the
flash thing and even better if you share a solar with the enemy firing the nuke
and then flashed it while the nuke was in the air. Could an admin find my old
post and repost it? It is probably the only other post I have made here.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by The Barbar on 02-03-2002 01:04 AM:

All of the bugs give TA depth and replayability. Some of them are hard to do,
take a lot of microing and barley pay off. It gives you many things to do to
seperate the good from the great. This is a good thing RIGHT PLEASE SAY RIGHT

Posted by Screamer on 02-03-2002 11:18 AM:

Annihilater, it’s still random though, you can’t force a nuke to become a dud.

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-03-2002 03:10 PM:

BarBar- wrong. just because a cheat takes technique, does not make it okay. Nor
do any disadvatages that come with the cheating. When you get something for
nothing - you have cheated. I don’t understand why people don’t comprehend such
a simple concept.

You can force all nukes to be successful, no matter how many anti-nukes they
face. That is clearly cheating and I will not discuss how this is done. A player
admitted cheating this way years ago. Marathon rules were even changed to limit
nukes to 2 because people didn’t know that cheating was the reason this player
was successful at nuking.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 04, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by The Barbar on 02-03-2002 03:27 PM:

Do you know how to play TA yourself? If you did you would know that none of TA’s
bugs will drasticly change the outcome of a game. Also someone who has more then
2 silos is winning anyways!

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-03-2002 05:22 PM:

A missle tower will turn a partial moho metal maker off in less than 3 shots if
that many.

And lets say he lost an array of mohos. He could have all their metal production
back by starting a whole line of , say, eight and quickly sparking each one with
a nearby missle tower for example. So, by cheating he could go from losing all
his metal production to full metal production just by using a few construction
vehicles or cmdr to nurse an array of partial mohos that have been sparked. Yet,
his opponent, who lost all his bombers hitting that array of mohos, thinks he
cut the enemy metal production for at least the amout of time it would take him
to rebuild eight moho metal makers. Cheating by sparking grows in advantage in
the scenerio I describe. There are many other ways this cheat is unfair.

Why people are not trained in school enough to recognise that cheats with
disadvantages are still cheats, I will never know. It is simple logic.

BarBar- In a fusion/mmm building race, the cheater sparking will have a 3:1
metal advantage buy the second fusion/sparked mmm(x2)pair over the fair player
and the advantage grows exponentially. Barbar, I have played you many times.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 03, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by Abe on 02-03-2002 06:13 PM:

“I don’t understand why people don’t comprehend such a simple concept”

The problem is your defenition.
Lets start with the “getting something” part. Something of what? Resources,
time, advantages, what is the “something”?
Same with “for nothing”. Nothing of what?

If my guardian can磘 target my enemy磗 guardian, because they are slighly
further apart then their range, I force attack on the ground just in front of
his guardian. The range has not been extended (like the range bug/exploit), but
the blast will:

Damage his guardian
Prevent it from firing back automaticly.

I got “something” alright. But did I get it for nothing? I “payed” with some
real time. I guess you could say I got it cheap, but not “for nothing”.

The latest TA recorder gives you perfect rows of DTs, tidals etc (the 5,4,6
lineup instead of the 4,5,6), markers which makes targetting trivial compared to
using your memory with the help of scars, plants and other terrain, shows LoS
and resources of your ally and even helps with the different commands you used
to type manually.
That磗 a LOT of “something” for nothing. Yet, you don磘 even mention the
recorder.

The old bombing trick which makes bombers about 5 times more effective due to
their reload time, is getting something for real time. You pay with
micromanagement and attention, to get something extra…for nothing?

I can磘 think of a single “cheat” that doesn磘 need a real time investment. And
every trick that you consider legal, need that as well. That elusive “nothing”
is very hard to find imo. Maybe the recorder/hook qualifies.

My defenition of cheat is rather different. For me, a player is cheating if he:

Uses an exploit that makes units, defenses or resources too overpowered.
(Laggy flying bombs, firing rockets at hilltops, Air con reclaim bug, nuke bugs,
etc)
I don磘 consider Moho sparking overpowering, so I allow it IF everyone is aware
of it and use it. I consider firing at hilltops VERY unfair and overpowering, so
I don磘 accept that (happend in a game not long ago)
Uses a trick/explot that his enemy consider unfair, or isn磘 aware of,
asuming they are of equal skill. (One player sparks his mohos, the other don磘,
etc)
Skill level is the key here. If my enemy belives that bombers need a long run
before releasing again, then my bombing is unfair and defines “cheating”. But,
players need to be on the same skill level for this defenition to be valid.

Bottom line Pelvis, I would need a better explanation of your cheat defenition
to accept it.

<–Abe–>

Posted by NewKid on 02-03-2002 08:50 PM:

The problem is : what is the “default” status of each cheat. If nobody talks
about it before the game, is it a cheat or not?

For me :

Stuffing factories: no
MMM sparking : yes
Nuke bug : yes
Line bombing : no
Krogoth cloning : yes
Hill targetting : no
BB range : no
AdvPlanes reclaim : yes
Off-edge flying : yes
Lag exploitation : yes

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-04-2002 02:42 AM:

I think Newkid has simplified my conclusions well.

The most important thing to me in addressing the issues in the title, was the
fact that friends and experienced players started using these bugs against me
without telling me and with the additional knowledge, gleened from demo
recordings, that the exploits of these resource cheats would give them a greater
advantage against me than other players. I recognised these cheats were being
used against me in game play w/o viewing them on a recorder. I could not
understand why my production skills had become so much less competitive, until I
happened to be in a situation to watch a game and see the 2 year old exploits
being used. Why my friends decided to wait this long to start using exploits we
were all aware of years ago, I will never know. What I was most curious about
was the fact that they did not recognise that these would be viewed as cheats or
even poor sportsmanship among friends. I then began to question popular opinion
and see that which was so obvious to me, was not to 1/2 of the other players. I
wanted to establish standards to help other players easily recognise why some
exploits are cheating.

Abe- What you describe as an exploit in your example is not a bug. Weapons in TA
have a factor of accuracy like in the real world. If you fire a weapon at
maximum range it is intended to miss the mark and fall in variance. This is a
feature of the game, a part of the game design, not a bug.

As far as “Something for nothing” not being clear to you, it is a concept that
other players seem to have difficulty grasping. “Something,” for example, will
include an advantage that lasts throughout the game. Five times more metal than
you would produce without an exploit of a bug would be an example of an
advantage that lasts for a long time. “Nothing” would be defined in terms of
game features. Resources, build time, invincibility would be examples of game
features that the exploit may gain without the fixed costs designed into the
game.

I will give a new example: If I fly my commander off screen in an atlas and
issue a ctrl-a/ stop command, I have rendered my commander invisible to radar
and invincible. The game was designed to use jammers to make units invisible to
radar with unit proximity as a counter to this. Cloaking the commander was
designed to render him invisible to other units with proximity to enemy and
energy loss as limiting factors.

I did not discuss the recorder features as they are no more a part of the TA
release than trainers. I use the recorder. It has a report and disable feature
that can be accessed by players w/o the recorder. I only use the build queue
feature to build dragon teeth as I think to queue weapons and production is
unfair to the rare few that may not know about the recorder. I check for the
recorder with strangers and tell them about it if they are not aware. I usually
decline to play with such players because they are missing CC or units. Some
would say recording and watching others’ games without their knowledge is
cheating. Abe doesn’t even mention shared LOS, radar and targeting info which
are the most important features of the demo recorder.

“I can磘 think of a single “cheat” that doesn磘 need a real time investment. And
every trick that you consider legal, need that as well. That elusive “nothing”
is very hard to find imo. Maybe the recorder/hook qualifies.”

Bottom line Abe, you need to read this thread more carefully. Punching the
buttons on a trainer requires a real time investment. Those costs in time do not
justify cheating.

If you can point out specifics, where my language becomes unclear to you or
others, I would be happy to edit my posts. I hope my definition of “Something”
and “nothing,” with respect to this game, will clear things up for you. NewKid
certainly made a great attempt.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 04, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by tcbw on 02-04-2002 02:37 PM:

Barbar>

Someone having 2 nuke silos does not necessarily win the game:
http://www.tcbw.net/ta/outer_links/…NukeRainTA.html

And everything mentioned about the Recorder is no cheating since all the
features can be switched off even from a computer not running it.

.ehaoff
map pos and LOS sharing, draw board, markers

.tahookoff
switch off key makros

– tcbw

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:01 PM.Pages (10): ?1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright ?Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2004.
@Copyright 2001-2004 Nexus Entertainment, LLC.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:58

Posted by The Barbar on 02-08-2002 12:03 AM:

FOR ME:
Stuffing factories: no
MMM sparking : no
Nuke bug : no
Line bombing : no
Krogoth cloning : no
Hill targetting : no
BB range : no
AdvPlanes reclaim(i think you mean multi reclaim): no
Off-edge flying : no
Lag exploitation : no

Damn it looks so simple, now what can we all learn from this…

Posted by LordBeek on 02-08-2002 03:10 AM:

I totally agree with The Barbar, though i must admit, Krogoth Cloning and Hill
top firing is something which i have never tried.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

im good
15 min bt

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-08-2002 11:06 AM:

Barbar-“Damn it looks so simple, now what can we all learn from this…”?

That cheating is simple? I suggest it is simpler not to exploit any special
tricks and stick to normal game play.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by NewKid on 02-08-2002 11:16 AM:

Barbar said :
“none of TA’s bugs will drasticly change the outcome of a game”

Mmmh, then why to use it?
(And yes, I’ve already played TA…)

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by The Barbar on 02-08-2002 01:24 PM:

How do you determine what is a special trick or not? By rules made up by a bunch
of crappier TA players. SO much simplier!

Why to use it? Because it gives you small advantages, not drastic advantages.

I am playing a game on JP there are mav’s shooting at my comm! I have one
advanced conveh and I start the Moho! I dodge behind the trees missing the
gauss! Then I spark the Moho with my comms laser, then all of a sudden its
activated! I WIN I WIN!

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-08-2002 02:58 PM:

Barbar- Some people consider free krogoths a big advantage. If you will read the
thread carefully, I describe the huge metal advantage the sparking creates. It
is very clear that these cheats provide a huge advantage. Why not see if you can
win any games without them? I do.

I want to be clear that I am not trying to make any special rules. I think I
should not have to say anything to be sure that peo0ple will not cheat me. I
dont tell people that no trainers are allowed and I don’t think I should have to
tell them not to exploit bugs that are cheating.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 08, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by CC24601 on 02-08-2002 06:13 PM:

I think that if this thread has highlighted anything, it is the need for
communication betweeen players before a game as to what they deem acceptable
behaviour. Everyone has a different idea of which bug exploitations are okay and
which are not, and so unless these things are agreed on before the game, then we
just see a descent into accusations of cheating, with neither player able to
hold the moral high ground since there is no universal definition of appropriate
behaviour.

This is the system I work to: if it is in the game, then it is an exploitable
feature that is free for all players to use unless they agree beforehand. This
is just the same as players agreeing to limit the use of units which they feel
unbalance the game, such as the Fibber, Pelican or Flash. After all, people
should be allowed to play the game however they want to play it.

Conversely, if a player wishes to influence the game using an external program,
such as the Recorder or a trainer, then he should receive permission from the
other participants beforehand. I think it would be handy if, when playing
someone you have not encountered before, players running the Demo Recorder would
check to see if their opponents have it, and if not, seek permission to use it.
After all, someone who has never heard of the Recorder will have no knowledge of
.ehaoff, and a facility available to only one player is much worse than a bug
which is exploitable by both.

Posted by NewKid on 02-08-2002 06:34 PM:

Well, it’s already a problem to discuss basic rules… To speak before each game
about each bug would be boring… I think I will just memorize cheating
players… Already a list here

The demo recorder is an advantage, but not in terms of skills… It doesn’t
really enhance apparent skill, or boost production… It’s more like playing
with different resolutions : if i play 1280x1024, I’ve an advantage against a
guy playing 640x480… but there are no reason I choose 640x480 just because the
other one has a 14" monitor…

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 08, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by tau’ri01 on 02-08-2002 07:29 PM:

This is a rather petty point… but what do you mean by limiting the number of
units which unbalance the game? You think the flash is unfair? The pelican i can
understand, due to the aleged bug with missiles, but it can still be hit by
anything else… and the flash gets owned very soon by most other units, and the
fibber is a quality unit. There is nothing in those units which the designers
didnt intend to be there. Basically i like fibbers. and i dont want there to be
any talk of restricting their numbers. And one is more then enough aznyway.
Coming up with a set of rules with regards to cheating has nothing to do with
limiting the numbers of certain units.

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by CC24601 on 02-08-2002 08:59 PM:

You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make; allow me to clarify.

When I cited the fact that some players (note that I am not necessarily one of
them) like to restrict units to affect game balance, I was merely trying to draw
a parallel with affecting game balance by restricting tactics/exploitations.

The point I am trying to make is this - if you want to restrict MMM sparking,
Flashes, Fibbers or whatever else in a game, thats up to you and the other
participants. People should play the game whatever way they want.

However, such limitations are all artificial by nature, and as such should be
cited and agreed on by all players beforehand.

Posted by NewKid on 02-08-2002 11:30 PM:

By the way, what about Switeck’s bugfix? I finally found it
(http://www.thegeek.nu/files/TA_Stuph/Switeck/TA_Bugfix1-6b4.zip)… Is it
widely used? Could it be seen as a cheat (after all it’s third party…) ? One
can’t say TA isn’t beter with it than without…

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Xavier on 02-09-2002 12:44 AM:

i won’t consider any of these things cheating until chris taylor tells me
personally they weren’t meant to be part of ta. until then its part of the game.
these things are possible without any outside modification of the game and to
say they aren’t meant to be used is like saying u aren’t meant to guard labs
with con units.

my 2c…

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:58

Posted by Abe on 02-09-2002 08:28 AM:

“Everyone has a different idea of which bug exploitations are okay and which are
not, and so unless these things are agreed on before the game, then we just see
a descent into accusations of cheating, with neither player able to hold the
moral high ground since there is no universal definition of appropriate
behaviour.”

I磍l double that. This idea of “finding the cheaters” won磘 ever make it outside
the messageboards anyway. As long as all the players agree on the rules where磗
the problem?

This wouldn磘 be the first time cheats, bugs and exploits are discussed on
boards. And as far as I can remember, the players on Zone always stick to their
own rules, regardless of what messageboard communities think.

<–Abe–>

Posted by Pic on 02-09-2002 08:59 AM:

i just want to say that … the biggest ovrelooked cheat is the recorder and
tahook and sharelos and anything along those lines… its not fair to say things
that are PART of the engine are cheats if 3rd party PROGRAMS that anyone can
get… arent cheats… when you type .sharelos… you get los over your partners
units FOR FREE… when you mark a bertha… you get an ultimate peep for 1
peep…or mt or something you get free memeory for dling a recorder pos… when
you watch a demo… you are watching to get better… something someone didnt do
b4 … i mean they didnt watch they played it out… you get something for nothing
watching demos… thats the worst of all… for da realz… tahook? supose to make
it so you dont have to click alot right? and speed things up for you riught? you
talk about not all players ahving things? not all have that… i dont for one…
not that i care… but… anything demo related besides fixall is a flouring
cheat…
oh well bye

[The]-[Pic]┊?

[This message has been edited by Pic (edited February 09, 2002).]

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by NewKid on 02-09-2002 11:29 AM:

“i won’t consider any of these things cheating until chris taylor tells me
personally they weren’t meant to be part of ta”

You should read the BugFix doc, it describes some obvious bugs and typos, it’s
reasonnable to presume that at least some of them would have been fixed by
Cavedog if they had survived.

The debate is between
A) People whose goal is only to win, even if it’s just by knowing more bugs than
the other, and
B) People whose goal is to play a realistic balanced wargame, and want to win by
strategic reflexion.
I don’t say the category A of players is bad, and the B good, but I’m in the B.
I would prefer a tweaked TA, where all the units and buildings should be used,
to a MT/Samsons against MT/Slasher game.
Obviously, TA + Switeck’s BugFix is a far beter game for the “B” players, as
it’s more balanced, and you don’t have to know the mechanics of a MMM to win (in
a Chris Taylor interview, he says +/-“A general doesn’t have to manage the food
and ammo, in TA you’re the general”).
I guess the “A” category wouldn’t like to have no more use for all these
knowledge about how to beat another guy by using bugs he doesn’t know.

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-09-2002 12:24 PM:

Trust me, Chris Taylor agrees with me. The recorder is not cheating because
people without it can detect it by command and disable it.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by Screamer on 02-09-2002 01:45 PM:

Xavier, so will you also multireclaim rocks and wreckage?

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Abe on 02-09-2002 05:25 PM:

NewKid reminds me of a guy I met at Zone. He demanded Groundwar, amd when I
asked why he wanted to ban 1/3 of the units in the game, he said:
“It磗 more strategy in groundwar”

NewKid, I think you need to see what we磖e discussing here. It has nothing to do
with skill, the desire to win, the value of strategy.
We are trying to define what a cheat is. That磗 all.

A guy like Barbar beats 95% of the players on Zone, whatever rules you might
throw in. Remove Moho spark, recorder and hook, of edge flying and he磍l STILL
beat 95% of the players.

The debate is rather between:
A) Those who wants to make some kind of standard list of cheats, something that
won磘 ever be accepted in general.
B) Those who prefer talking, making an agreement and then play. You don磘 want
Moho Sparks? Ok, lets skip that. I want off screen flying, ok we磍l have that.
We can磘 agree? Hf, Im going to some other room.

yeah, Im B.

<–Abe–>

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 02-09-2002 06:54 PM:

I don’t care if i am called any names by this post.
"WTF is all of these bugs in TA in the list at the top off page 3? I know about
the bomber one but excuse me WTF is sparking? i play TA alot and know of a few
of these bugs but the names your ppl make up, honestly i mean please share your
intelligence with the less knowloedgeable players here.

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by Masonary on 02-09-2002 07:22 PM:

sparking is a way to get an openable unit to open before it is built, used
mainly on Mohos. Shoot at a moho whilst it is being built, and it will open
before complete, saving you time and getting your resources up quicker. Just get
the timing right, as the hit also causes it to lose health, and you dont want to
kill it

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

which is worse, confusion or apathy? who knows, who cares

When the Blind Leadeth the blind
They Bumpeth into things

which is worse, confusion or apathy? who knows, who cares

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:58

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-09-2002 08:48 PM:

Abe- “The debate is rather between:
A) Those who wants to make some kind of standard list of cheats, something that
won磘 ever be accepted in general.”

Wrong. There is no debate. The idea is to use logic to help you understand what
cheating is. I have showed you how simple it is (something for nothing). Now you
dont have to make any special rules and just let your logic guide you.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by CC24601 on 02-09-2002 10:03 PM:

Surely when you artificially extend the range of a Bertha by force targetting
near its base, you are getting something (extra range) for nothing? Yet in your
original post, you claim this is not cheating.

You also say in that same paragraph that some consider it cheating, and so you
shouldn’t do it when playing them. How can you have it both ways? How can you
believe that there is an absolute standard of what defines cheating that
everyone should be ‘guided to by logic’, yet still believe that different views
to yours on what is or isn’t a cheat are equally valid? I will be interested to
hear your response!

[This message has been edited by CC24601 (edited February 09, 2002).]

Posted by Xavier on 02-10-2002 01:57 AM:

i don’t care about ‘presume’ that they didn’t mean that and whatever - its
there, part of ta, so use it or don’t.

and screamer - i have no objections to multireclaiming but i don’t really do it
cos i don’t have time to muck around with fiddly things like that. i do tho
think that what ppl like JR do is kinda lame - he jsut doesn’t make resources on
gow and multireclaims for his metal - i think that just shows a lack of skill or
something.

but i don’t think its cheating.

i mean theres so many lame things u can do in ta - these bugs are maybe just
some more. making 15 labs all on flashes when u are 2 mins behind game time is
not technically cheating but if u do it u aren’t gonna have a lotta ppl wanting
to play u again… but its not ‘cheating’ per se… its just really sad

and umm pelvisguy… i always thought cheating was modifying the game in some way
that both players are not able to take advantage of… things that both players
can do that are part of the game engine as released by cavedog can hardly be
cheating now can it?

[This message has been edited by Xavier (edited February 10, 2002).]

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-10-2002 03:24 AM:

CC2### The reason i think targeting the base of a bertha is not cheating is that
there is a loss of accuracy. There is no resource associated with this action so
it has the kind of benefit that firing at max range has. As far as mentioning
that some people think it is cheating, that was to illustrate grey area that may
be addressed by rules. Something for nothing does not apply because of the
elemnts of the game that I referred to earlier, like resources, invisibility,
invincibility, none of which are a part of this exploit. The point being that
each exploit is addressed differently based on the gains. There is only range
gained by this exploit and you have to build a bertha to get it. Nothing is free
here.(no resource or special power not normally granted by the engine) Just
range with a lack of accuracy and targeting.

Xavier- as I said, cheating is getting something for nothing as defined earlier.
These cheats may take special knowledge or clicking not necessarily available. I
found half the people didn’t know they exist. Those, felt they had been cheated.
In most cases they were correct.

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by Xavier on 02-10-2002 04:18 AM:

so hmm - is using a necro to resurrect con wreckages as u build a gantry over
them so they can help guard out krogoths cheating too?

if someone doesn’t know that u can guard arm veh labs with con veh from behind
does it mean ur cheating if u do it that game? how are u expected to know what
ur opponent knows about the game?

and by your definition… isn’t having a commander cheating? u get +1m and +25
energy for nothing? u didn’t build him?

[This message has been edited by Xavier (edited February 10, 2002).]

Posted by Abe on 02-10-2002 04:26 AM:

Pelvis, let me sum it up for you in a way you might find easier. People don磘
want/need/asked for your definition of a “cheat”. GoW is one of the most popular
maps out there, and GoW means bombing with off edge flying. You won磘 change
that, no matter how flawless you think your logic is.
On a regular night on Zone maybe 50 games are played on GoW (most likely more)
and in those games, bombers “purposefully get positioned off the map”. Players
enjoy doing so, they will keep doing so and your the first person I see in 4
years of TA gaming who has a problem with it.

On the other hand, there are few people who belives in “anything goes”, maybe JR
and a few others, but most normal players are in between. They allow some of the
bugs/exploits, and they won磘 accept others.

A few years back an infamous “board expert” tried to convince people that AA
units, such as samsons, wern磘 meant to be used againt ground units. They also
claimed Hawks should not be used the way SJ used them. He had some neat
arguments, lots of logic conclusions and long posts on the subject. People still
use samsons, even if there isn磘 a single plane in the air. And they still use
SJs Hawk trick.

Accusing Gnugs of using a cheat (by your definition) and explain why, is
hilarious. We磖e talking about one of the most respected clans ever. The Gnug
tips are by far more useful then your cheat guide. Their skills and good
reputation really won磘 change because of your “logic”.

But keep on defining cheats, make lists and use your logic. It won磘 change a
thing to any of the players I know, but whatever makes you happy.

<–Abe–>

Posted by Xavier on 02-10-2002 04:31 AM:

one really important thing to remember here is - cheating is a pretty serious
accusation to make as it affects ppls ability to play a game that they enjoy
without harrassment - lets just say that these bugs are not always within the
spirit of the game and leave it there rather than go accusing ppl of being
cheats…

Posted by Pic on 02-10-2002 04:59 AM:

Well pelvisMam… you said something for nothing… uhm uhhh… mohos… you gotta
make a con… … then you gotto make the nano and spedn 5 metal b4 you can
shoot it… but its only 52 metal so oh well… and anyways…

i can not turn someone elsews recorder off. they get a demo of me and gain
knowledge i dont gain flour thats something for nothing … so its a cheat…
scrfew you all flour off causeum… we all know that um… well i dont know bye

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Pic on 02-10-2002 05:00 AM:

omfg dave you own lol i just read yer post lol

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 02-10-2002 08:28 AM:

All this commotion about bb/timmy range exdending whats it all about in war
their are no rules thus no cheats.
I can’t remember who said this but i think this applies to TA bug exploitation,
“There is no good or evil, there is only power and those to weak to see it.”

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by LordBeek on 02-10-2002 10:39 AM:

Well said annihilator.

Proud Member of the TEA clan.

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive but what they
conceal is vital

im good
15 min bt

Posted by Reaper_of_Souls on 02-10-2002 10:53 AM:

annihilator, I think thats in a harry potter book…, u know, the the evil guy
vold-whatever says it

-Ewok, The other white meat
-Pokemon, The other other white meat

Posted by NewKid on 02-10-2002 11:47 AM:

“whats it all about in war their are no rules thus no cheats”

It’s not a war, it’s a game. Games have rules.
Otherwise using a trainer is ok.

But well, anybody may play “no cheat as defined in this thread” or “not a single
rule”… I mean : it’s easier to say in the battle room “no tricks” than to talk
about each trick.

For me, using these bugs just destroy the game, I mean, my interest in playing
it. I would stop playing online if everybody was using it. Or, more likely, I
would install Switeck’s bugfix…

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 10, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by CC24601 on 02-10-2002 12:12 PM:

Pelvis, your last post illustartes the arbitrary nature of your rules very well,
as many have picked up on. You say each exploit has to be ‘addressed differently
based on the gains’, and you define extra range is being irrelevant, but extra
resource and unit durability to be a cheat. How you expect every TA player to be
guided to this set of conventions ‘by logic’ is beyond me. Of course, you
contradict yourself on this point, since you admit the existence of a ‘grey
area’. This thread illustrates this well - everyone has their own definitions.

Posted by NewKid on 02-10-2002 12:33 PM:

“Krogoth cloning is just fine” is just as arbitrary… A grey zone doesn’t mean
there are no cheats… For (nearly?) everybody, Krogoth cloning must be
explicitly admitted before a game to be considered as fair play. For everybody,
stuffing factory is not a cheat. Usually the two kinds of players are : bugs
exploitation allowed, or not. In both case people tend to share the same views,
but have to agree about some tricks, i.e, Krogoth cloning will be discussed in
the first case, off-edge gliding in the second one.

Some chicken! Some neck!

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:58

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-10-2002 02:19 PM:

Pic- “Well pelvisMam… you said something for nothing… uhm uhhh… mohos… you
gotta make a con… … then you gotto make the nano and spedn 5 metal b4 you can
shoot it… but its only 52 metal so oh well… and anyways…”

1.You obviously didn’t read where I defined “something for nothing”

The commander(and many other units) generates energy and metal as a part of
the game design.
Annihilator has found justification for everyone to use trainers and hack
Direct X for permanent LOS. Beek- “Well said annihilator.”
These last few posts make me think you cheaters have a lack of reading
comprehension. I suggest you read the entire thread carefully and ignore the Red
Herrings.

cc2####- “Of course, you contradict yourself on this point, since you admit the
existence of a ‘grey area’.”

Common sense can see the cheating in these exploits. Each exploit should be
considered individually without the need to be arbitrary. “Grey area” referred
to one exploit and excluded others. No contradiction there. Extended range is
designed into the game. The type of extension discussed here may have been
designed into the game.
I am very serious when I say some of these exploits are cheating. I have
known them all for years and know better than to use them in fair play.

“Accusing Gnugs of using a cheat (by your definition) and explain why, is
hilarious. We磖e talking about one of the most respected clans ever. The Gnug
tips are by far more useful then your cheat guide. Their skills and good
reputation really won磘 change because of your “logic”.”

I was told in this thread that the Gnugs published the “resource trick”(mmm
sparking) but do not use it when playing. You will have to ask them why they
don’t use it. I guess they agree with me that it is cheating. I would respect
them for that.

Please post something new here and try to make a point. Your arguments are
starting to lack substance. I never said I was any sort of expert. Even the
NewKid can spot a cheater ;-).

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 10, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by Xavier on 02-10-2002 02:31 PM:

“2. The commander generates energy and metal as a part of the game design.”

…

moho sparking is possible as part of the game design…
well in fact - all these things are part of the game design o_0
any difference between intended game design and what is actually released is
irrelevant - what they released is what the game is.

ur definitions and arguments all contradict themselves pelvis.

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-10-2002 02:34 PM:

Xavier- “any difference between intended game design and what is actually
released is irrelevant” LOL, So irrelevant that there is no need to exploit
bugs.

Find moho sparking in the Cavedog documentation. You get my point? The game has
bugs and you are not forced to exploit them.

It is nice to rephrase my comments out of context with the entire thread and
call them contradictions. If it makes you feel better about your cheating, I
guess that works for you. It does not make for a valid argument.

Does the fact that Cavedog did not encrypt all network data streams make it okay
for me to set up a proxy server cheat that gives me autotargeting at no cost?
Annihilater2k1, that would just be a clever exploit of the game engine like
sparking, right?

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 10, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by Pic on 02-10-2002 03:35 PM:

does the fact that cavedog didnt make recorder ring a bell? omg… ignore all
red herrings um… ok what did you say pelv? hmmm huh what… oh yah… STUFn00b
http://www.wn.com.au/jollycampers/stfunoob.swf

and no sparking a moho is never a disadvantage if you neeed energy just shoot
the flourer till it dies … no biggie huh?

and also FLAME!!!i mean spam… plz see my post for details on real strategy

is there an ignore button here so i dont see that red herrings posts?

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-10-2002 04:11 PM:

If anyone understands what Pic means in this last post, please explain it in
english.

In an effort to help you understand that some of your arguments are not that at
all:

http://ethics.acusd.edu/Courses/log…3_2/tsld044.htm
http://ethics.acusd.edu/Courses/log…/3_2/sld001.htm

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 10, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:01 PM.Pages (10): ?1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright ?Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2004.
@Copyright 2001-2004 Nexus Entertainment, LLC.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:59

Posted by Xavier on 02-11-2002 02:08 AM:

sorry i have never read the cavedog documentation i figured stuff out myself or
from playing and talking to experienced players.
ur proxy server thing is the stupidest thing i ever heard - sorry.

my point about what cavedog released is this: they released a piece of software
and some patch updates… using that software and that alone i can perform all
these bugs. a point to consider… what is the time differential between the
release of TA v1.0 and the release of the v3.1 patch? i don’t actually know but
surely if these things were so evil they would have fixed them? i dunno i wasn’t
around then…

i also want to point out that i rarely if ever use these bugs - and have never
multireclaimed anything in an online game.

i think i’ve said all i can about this topic so i will leave it rest. one more
thing b4 i hit post - i really feel i must reiterate the point i made earlier -
accusing ppl of cheating is serious and affects their ability to play this game
and have fun. if they really do cheat then fair enuff they can go play the ai or
their lan mates or something. but the ppl who simply are knowledgable about the
game engine and use features that don’t seem logical to u and a few other ppl -
it is wrong to call them cheats and ruin any fun they might have playing this
game. (which after all is JUST A GAME)

[This message has been edited by Xavier (edited February 11, 2002).]

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-11-2002 02:58 PM:

Xavier-Fallacies:

“ur proxy server thing is the stupidest thing i ever heard - sorry.” Attack on
person

“my point about what cavedog released is this: they released a piece of software
and some patch updates… using that software and that alone i can perform all
these bugs. a point to consider… what is the time differential between the
release of TA v1.0 and the release of the v3.1 patch? i don’t actually know but
surely if these things were so evil they would have fixed them? i dunno i wasn’t
around then…”
-The “tab trick” was fixed by CD. I was around then. This statement implies that
if the bugs were not fixed they were not bugs. If that is not what you intended
to say I would be presenting a “straw man” argument.

“I also want to point out that I rarely if ever use these bugs - and have never
multireclaimed anything in an online game.”
-This would be an appeal to pity. It could also be considered missing the point
as it makes no arguments and draws no conclusions. It could reinforce my
argument if you draw the conclusion that he does not use these exploits often
because he knows they are cheating.

“accusing ppl of cheating is serious and affects their ability to play this game
and have fun. if they really do cheat then fair enuff they can go play the ai or
their lan mates or something. but the ppl who simply are knowledgable about the
game engine and use features that don’t seem logical to u and a few other ppl -
it is wrong to call them cheats and ruin any fun they might have playing this
game.”
-This is another appeal to pity. Maybe also an appeal to the people. It draws no
logical conclusion but says that to discuss cheating spoils the fun of the game.
I suggest fair play is the most important aspect of games and has nothing to do
with real war.

My point is that through the entire thread you can apply the Fallacy of
Relevance test to each of the cheaters’ justifications and see they rarely make
relevant arguments.

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 11, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by tcbw on 02-11-2002 03:26 PM:

For the multiple c-plane reclaim cheat: If it wasn’t considered as cheating by
Cavedog (the makers of TA) why the heck went the resource cheat alert off for
ppl using this cheat when playing on Boneyards? Can you explain this to me plz?

I remember there was one player wondering why he got banned from BY until
someone got the idea it was his use of the multiple reclaim bug. No one was
using it from this point on when playing on BY and Cavedog did NOT change the BY
server code after the cause for the alert was cleared and rported to the sysops.

I wonder how the server had treated MMM sparking, I bet it had fired a resource
cheat alert too since the server was constantly checking the metal/energy income
against the producing structures actually finished and even considered
reclaiming.

God, I loved BY…

– tcbw

404 - PeterC may have stolen this page

[This message has been edited by tcbw (edited February 11, 2002).]

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

Posted by CC24601 on 02-11-2002 03:27 PM:

Pelvis: Amusingly, your sudden change of tack to discussing logical fallacies is
a rather blatant red herring, as well as an indirect appeal to the people.

But then, this is all getting more and more pointless; it’s all been said. As
they say, ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink’.

Doubtless you agree.

[This message has been edited by CC24601 (edited February 11, 2002).]

Posted by PelvisPressMe on 02-11-2002 03:57 PM:

CC2####- I agree, that is why I decided to start pointing out the fallacies as
most of the last replies were fallacies. Actually I noticed when I first
complained about the cheats, the justifications fell into the fallacies
category.

My pointing out fallacies is a critical part of the argument and not a red
herring or an appeal to the public. I have to disagree. It is my understanding
that to point out fallacies is off subject but is important in defending your
position.

I also plan to progress to Buzzsaw level by replies to this thread

I welcome any replies that are not fallacies. I would love it if someone changed
my mind on this subject.

I never thought of using the BY statistical check as a measure of which bugs are
considered cheating by Cavedog. My only problem with that is BY programmers may
not have known how to record when people moved their units off screen so they
could only test for a subset of the cheats. They were really targeting trainers
and probably didnt detect permanent LOS or instant capture.

If Chris Taylor came on this thread and told you which exploits were cheating,
would you stop using them?

[This message has been edited by PelvisPressMe (edited February 11, 2002).]

May the Fark be with you!

Posted by NewKid on 02-11-2002 04:02 PM:

I don’t understand why you bugs exploiters want so much use that bugs… as it
doesn’t change the ourtome of the game… What’s the problem?

Cloning a krog is not fair play, for example, if the others are Arm, they can’t
clone anything… They can’t double the firepower for nearly no cost, no time.

Off-edge gliding isn’t fair play, as the player being in the upper left of the
map can’t do it so well than the one being in the lower right.

Multi reclaim is obviously a bug, as it isn’t in the logic of the game, for
obvious reasons : you never can create metal from nothing, but this way.

But well, this discussion is useless, obviously, some people don’t care about
playing it fair. They can play together, making multi-reclaims, MMM sparking and
so on, but I don’t want to play this way, so I won’t… And if someone plays me
this way, I’ll think he’s not a good wargamer… playing with him is losing my
time… Just like playing metal maps, or 10k/10k, or Quake : i don’t like it,
period.

Anyway, if too much people cheat, i’ll play BugFix

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 11, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Pic on 02-11-2002 04:30 PM:

Fallicies are lame i mean talking about them get over your education man …

As for your saying offscreen use of planes is lame… well the top of maps have
plants the send units down lower people have to go around thier lab… so is
making a lab above your oppoents cheating? and yes you can bomb offsccreen on
the lower edge… and on gow… is starting lower left cheating? it has more rocks
… you get something ,more for nothing… right?

there is really only 2 sorta lame things … thats mm sparking and multi recl…

i dont see why we are discussing anything else o_O infact

wtf are we talking about this for…

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by NewKid on 02-11-2002 04:52 PM:

Let’s talk about the size of the map.

Small maps tend to have significant side effects. These effects are lower when
the map is bigger.

For the “turn-around the lab” thing, with big maps it doesn’t change anything,
and anyway even on small maps it adds just some seconds to the arrival time of
the first unit (say, at the center of the map), but the flood of units is the
same so in the long-term it doesn’t change nothing.

For off-edge gliding, the gain of the side effect increase with the size of the
map, as you can avoid more and more flak and fighters. In the long-term it gets
even worse.

I know how to use it, did it a lot, but I prefer a game where you can’t send
planes far in the other’s territory without any danger.

On small maps (ie : maps where one BB can reach nearly all the map), off-edge
may be ok, but on large maps it’s more interesting to avoid that and to play
“territorically”.

But well, my taste… I love long games, against a player at just my level, on
big maps… others love fast games on small maps, others want to be said “great”
or “good” “on all maps”… well… No use for 4 letters words there…

(“there is really only 2 sorta lame things … thats mm sparking and multi recl”

why that? why just that?
2 )So, krog cloning is ok? purposedly increasing lag too? anti-nuke bug too?)

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 11, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Pic on 02-12-2002 03:16 AM:

no one does the other things… no one flouring makes krogs , ect,… if they
are doing that they are newb bashers and thats even lamer… and as for nuke
crap… if you have time to make it work… then they should be dead anyways… and
as for lag enducers… well wtf kinda question is that…Xavier says:
i wanna find somewhere that i can post “what was yer excuse for losing b4 this
cheating thing pelvis?”
No that day was awhile ago… says:
um
No that day was awhile ago… says:
post it on all threads
Xavier says:
ok
Xavier says:
lol
Xavier says:
i jus tcan’t give him the satisfaction of making me post again on teh cheats one

[The]-[Pic]┊?

[This message has been edited by Pic (edited February 12, 2002).]

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by NewKid on 02-12-2002 06:31 AM:

Pic, I often don’t understand what you mean, as it’s written in pidgin, and when
I understand, it’s often scornfull and/or useless… “How to defend?” “Kill the
other guy”… If someone asks “How to play?” you will answer “Like an expert, ie
like me”?

You forget that often people tend to play against people with the same level, as
not everybody takes his pleasure by crushing someone less good.

In this situation, both parts have approximately the same ressources, and on big
maps you can win because you have the right lvl2 units, or of course if you
spark MMM and the other don’t.

But anyway, it’s useless, you won’t understand me, and you will probably bark at
me now, like you do with PelvisPressMe. I don’t care, kids have to grow.

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 12, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by DOGGY on 02-12-2002 07:03 AM:

hi kids, this are adv strategies, and ppl who ask pic for help know which units
to build on large landmaps. It is more about the fine-skillz, to do the right
thing in the right moment, to know when to change the strat, how to use units
effectively, e.g. have no idle cons even if u are busy with incoming flashes,
using all units at max effectiveness. It is not about sparking mmms or “build
mavs”, lol, every expert does that, but it doesnt make u win the game, games are
decided early in the game, normally, the first losses can mean u will lose, 1
good flash can screw u.

If u ever play pic u will realize that there wont be long games, not even on
large maps (if he attacks… and really tries to finish the game asap)
btw, pic, u contradict urself: u say experts will always play as good as they
can… u know what i mean

Posted by NewKid on 02-12-2002 07:14 AM:

I know that Pic vs me won’t make a long game, but one can imagine Pic playing
against someone equally skilled… Then the game could be a long one…

(yesss, I’m a fido now, i like it )

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 12, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:59

Posted by Pic on 02-12-2002 02:36 PM:

nah i wont bark at ya you are too laid back, and as for awnsering saying be an
expert i never said that…

doggy yer wrong man,. im a super newb not an expert that is why if you catch my
drift?

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Screamer on 02-13-2002 03:14 PM:

NewKid… not everyone’s out to get ya… read Pic’s posts without trying to
interpret a tone into them and you’ll find they aren’t offensive at all, he’s
just a bit of a weirdo (in a good way). His humour is easy to misunderstand if
you’re trying to read things into his messages…

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by iomeag on 02-18-2002 09:49 AM:

I liked NewKid’s earlier comment the best:

Originally written by NewKid I don't understand why you bugs exploiters want so much use that bugs... as it doesn't change the ourtome of the game... What's the problem?

While I might be interpreting it wrong, I think it’s an excelent point.

How often do you really think that a person using bugs and other ‘cheats’ really
gained a major edge over his opponet? Did it affect that outcome of the battle?

-iomeag

Posted by Screamer on 02-18-2002 11:42 AM:

In case of multireclaim, it can. Sparking also can, though it usually doesn’t -
I think it’s just lame and it’s a bug, not a feature. All the rest are
technicalities.

I’m glad Pic agrees on those two…

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by NewKid on 02-18-2002 12:15 PM:

I believe it does change the outcome, they believe that don’t. So if we all play
without this trick, both of us think the game is fair. So why to use it? Anyway,
they say they believe that doesn’t change nothing!
For MMM sparking, of course if you do that just after having build a nuclear
plant, or when all your previous MMMs has been destroyed, when you have plenty
energy, then it does of course change a lot. You fast recover your previous
metal production, in place of having to waste a lot of energy. So with the
sparking trick MMMs - once strategic targets - become poor strategic targets.
That changes not only the outcome of the game… If you’re the only one using
it, you’re also the only one to plan this effect… So you gain a lot of metal,
wasting less energy… I wonder why people using this are the same who doesn’t
like the demo recorder

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 18, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by The Barbar on 02-18-2002 12:43 PM:

Anything you do effects the outcome duh, but all TA bugs wont make a huge
difference OK?

If I choose not to use any bugs, and you go crazy on them you still wont beat me
so they can’t be that cheap.

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-18-2002 01:46 PM:

Barbar has a good point

Posted by NewKid on 02-19-2002 06:46 AM:

He’s just like a boxer saying “with or without gloves I can beat you, so why to
use gloves? It’s a fight, fight has no rules”… He’s beter than me, so what? He
could say “with or without a trainer I can beat you, so why are you going crazy
when I use it?”

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 19, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by The Barbar on 02-19-2002 10:18 AM:

? Your crazy

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-19-2002 03:59 PM:

Newkid- your reasonable arguments are being met with complete failure in logic.
If they really didn’t make a difference , noone would use them. They make so
much of a difference , people are willing to argue for pages over it. Same with
flash rushes. If the flash was a balanced unit over the WAN , they would rarely
be used.

BarBar- In english when we insult someone we spell it “you’re”. I reviewed all
of Barbar’s contributions to this thread and none of them are logical arguments.
They all include insults (attack on person) and examples that are (straw man) if
i understand his broken english. I have noticed that most of the cheaters defend
their point this way. I have played Barbar and I noticed he is one of the worst
laggers. This may be why he thinks he is so good.

“If you cheat like me, I will still beat you without cheating” is not an
argument.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited February 19, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Pic on 02-19-2002 04:16 PM:

its easy mmmmKay… your mom is on crack ATTACk on pelvis… “aka: non
person”
ummm also pelvis sucks at ta this is adv strats not , adv cheats … MMMKAY?? it
barely makes a difference anyways oh well BUH BYE

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-19-2002 04:25 PM:

Once again, Pic mistakes a Southpark impression for a logical argument. I really
don’t care to hear from you if it is not constructive.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-19-2002 04:43 PM:

Face it - Pic, IWin and me all own you and you cant accept that - once you pass
puberty you might learn that but until then you’re still just a kid - make all
your stupid accusations as often as you like - they are still all BS.

Posted by Offspring on 02-19-2002 04:52 PM:

Cheat - Something that gives a player an unfair advantage over another player. A
method designed to beat the game’s logical system, e.g. making a player
invunerable to damage.

Bug - In game terminology, this is something that occurs in the game, that
wasn’t intended by the designers and defies the common logic of the game. e.g.
of common logic: when a unit is hit, it recieves damage, when a structure is
being built, it is not functional.

Bug Exploitation - Using a logical glitch or loophole to increase your advantage
over what would occur had the bug not been there, e.g Krogoth duplication.

What we have been discussing for the most part is not cheating, but bug
exploitation. Sparking of MMM, use of Pelicans, etc. They are all totally fair,
considering they are available to both players.

However they force players to use them, because they have to take advantage of
these bugs to win. They give such an overwhelming power-boost to a player that
they cannot be subsitituted for non-bugged techniques. Pelicans are the prime
example of this. If you build light naval vessels, they are owned by the
Pelicans. Infact they don’t stand any chance at all, because their major weapon
of missles, fails to connect with their target. Had this not been the case,
Pelicans would be powerful, though much less effective versus truly naval
forces. So you have to build Pelicans for the sake of using the bug. If you buld
ships, they are killed by the Pelicans. You have no other alternative.

The short of it, is that when people use bugs against you, you feel cheated by
that. Although it technically is totally fair, its doesn’t make you feel less
cheated, because you know, and they know, that it’s not supposed to be there.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-19-2002 05:19 PM:

Offspring- “What we have been discussing for the most part is not cheating, but
bug exploitation. Sparking of MMM, use of Pelicans, etc. They are all totally
fair, considering they are available to both players.”

No, you are restating my case. I am defining when a bug exploit is cheating. My
goal was not to discuss all the bugs (pelicans for example) but to show which
ones are clearly cheating. I detailed this carefully and showed how it differs
from fair play. Some would think flying a commander off screen is fair play and
I showed that even that is cheating.

I have to be careful when others make their own definitions without supporting
them with justification. Your pelican example is not the same, as any player is
free to build HLT and destroyers to counter them. Your example is related to
unit balance and the bug that makes the pelican unbalanced. Area damage from
missle units will kill pelicans well, as will torpedos when force fired.

If I were to adopt your logic; Sparking MMM is not cheating because you can
disable it in the build restrictions, would be a better, if flawed argument.

You may agree with me but the examples you gave contain logical fallacies.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited February 19, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:59

Posted by Pic on 02-19-2002 06:09 PM:

sorry to be mean about this but pelicans have no bugs yall are flourin dolts if
you think so

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Pic on 02-19-2002 06:11 PM:

also pelv… your mom made a fallacie

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Offspring on 02-20-2002 05:11 AM:

This is the very first time I have ever been brought to this, so I’ll make it
brief:

Pic, please shut up. Every time you post, its nothing more than drivel that
barely passes for an example of english language, devoid of any useful
information what so ever. You are totally narrow minded and your best form of
attack seems to invole the words ‘you mom’. Grow up or get out.

Now, I have that out of the way. Pelvis, flying a commander off screen isn’t
cheating, its exploiting a bug, or rather a wierd irritation of the TA-engine.
Again both player’s can do it, so its not unfair. It does make for a pretty crap
game though and it certainly is an annoyance to have to contend with.

Sparking MMM isn’t cheating beacuse you can all do it, not beacuse you can
disable it. You can overcome all of TA’s bug by disabling all the bugged units,
if that’s your issue.

Pelicans are the same, beacuse they exhibit a similar effect as the off-screen
flying. No, they are not as equally invunderable as those aircraft, but using
the same weapons that would affect all other naval units, like FMT’s, the
Pelicans are totally unharmed by their normal firing. You actually have to build
special defenses to deal with them. People only use Pelicans to enjoy this bug.
If you have ever played Bugfix, you will realize that Pelican’s aren’t half as
good without that effect.

For those who think that pelican’s aren’t bugged, consider this. If TA were
real, do you honestly believe that the operators of the missle turret’s would be
so stupid as to repeatedly attack the water around the pelicans instead of
adjusting their aim to actually hit them? Do you think that torpedo and
depth-charge firing units would hold their fire against them?

These are all bugs, errors and glitches that are unbalanced but not unfair,
since you can all use them freely. I personally will never use any bugs to my
advantage, bar the Pelican one, and only because I feel forced to, to have a
chance to win. Other things like off-screen bombing just piss me off and I
wouldn’t ever want to do it to another player. There are those that just don’t
care though.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by NewKid on 02-20-2002 06:49 AM:

“Sparking MMM isn’t cheating beacuse you can all do it, not beacuse you can
disable it. You can overcome all of TA’s bug by disabling all the bugged units,
if that’s your issue.”

You can all use a trainer, it’s cheating tho. Being able to use something don’t
make it fair. Sparking MMMs is not cheating “by nature”, it’s cheating because
it change the logic of the game. You would’nt do that, so playing against you
would be fun and fair.

Some people want aboslutely use it, if you speak about not using it they feel
bad and become agressive… They beat me so they are right, lol, but I don’t
care about playing against them, I don’t wanna play a game where destroying a
high-level device producing ressources isn’t relevant. I don’t wanna play a big
map where bombing something far inside the other’s territory is just as easy as
bombing something being just near my base… But you know, as Barbar says, my
crazy

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 20, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-20-2002 07:37 AM:

Can you stop with the ‘you can all use trainers’ excuse - its the most pathetic
point you could use - because TRAINERS DO NOT COME WITH TA. Fact. All these
‘cheats’ as you call them are part of TA - from out of the box - trainers are
not so we CANT all use them.

Posted by NewKid on 02-20-2002 07:55 AM:

I talk about it to show that the “everybody can have it so it’s ok” argument is
not good. Now, you’re arguing that “it’s with TA so it’s ok”. With this
argument, multi-reclaim is fair, as was giving a airplane repair pad surrounded
by flakkers… O giving MM to drain other’s energy. You could, with the same
argument, say that playing with the +atm cheat is great.

“Pathetic”, lol, so are people insulting others. I don’t say that people wanting
only to win, no matter the way, are just as interesting as children playing
Pokemons, do I ?

Oh, and about “Face it - Pic, IWin and me all own you and you cant accept that”
: I do accept, of course, I’m not a real kid, more : I don’t care… I play for
fun, not to feel beter, can you understand that?

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 20, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Offspring on 02-20-2002 08:29 AM:

If both players are using the same trainer, its totally fair. You can’t argue
that its cheating, because it doesn’t unfairly give someone an advantage over
the other.

If there was a bug in TA, that under certain circumstances, the Commander is
made invunerable, people would want to try and use it. Both of you can do it, so
its completely fair, but it makes the game totally lame.

I hate bug exploiters, because they ruin what would be a superb game. They try
to use the argument that its not cheating, to say they have a right to exploit
these bugs. Frankly those people don’t care about the fun in a game and all they
desire is the satisfaction of beating someone. I am happy with playing an
exploitation-less game and enjoying it.

It seems that the “Veteran” TA players have turn TA from a great game of
strategy and in-depth thinking, to one of “Who can exploit the bugs fastest”. It
saddens me

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by civman2 on 02-20-2002 08:44 AM:

you can spark ADV arm radar!

they blew up my connie and it turned on

Civman2,
Turn on your speakers and click here

Civman2,
“Imagine a school with children that can read and write, but with teachers who
cannot, and you have a metaphor of the Information Age in which we live.”

Look at all the pretty colors

Last edited by Haker on 01-1-1900 at 12:00 PM

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-20-2002 09:56 AM:

Offspring-“People only use Pelicans to enjoy this bug” Well, as I said earlier,I
cannot determine their intent so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
This is a bug and a unit balance issue. It is not cheating.

"If both players are using the same trainer, its totally fair. You can’t argue
that its cheating, because it doesn’t unfairly give someone an advantage over
the other. " No , this is the flaw in your argument and helps me make my most
important point. Both players are cheating. Yes, they have found game balance
but they are both engaged in the activity of cheating using a tool for cheating.
If they both spark moho metal makers they are both cheating. The logical
argument has nothing to do with balance. The point is the action that is taken
and the advantage it yields under any condition. This is why I proposed the
“something for nothing” test. I didn’t discuss the advantage of MMM sparking
until someone claimed that there was little advantage. It really does not matter
how much advantage you get. Cloned krogoths are probably more of an advantage
than sparking a solar panel but they are both cheating in an equal way.

If you fly units off the screen, the game could last forever. You can easily see
the unfair gains you get from an atlas and flying it off the map.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 11 日 16:59

Posted by Pic on 02-20-2002 02:46 PM:

offspring would you be happier if i talked in german? i mean geeze dude this
isnt an english topic… im not supose to write so you can understand its not
meant for you when i flame for silly reasons at other people but take it as you
wish…

are tidals and sonars unfair advantages???missles dont hit those either and
other such units, so when i mass tidals… thats cheating? and how coudl giving a
metal maker or flakker surrounded airpad be lame? they can just ctrl d it… if
they arent smart enough to look and see then thats thier fault… sharing is no
bug man o_O

as for the rest of dis stuff i dunt care bye

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Offspring on 02-20-2002 03:09 PM:

Tidals and sonars are as equally hard to hit with missles as the Pelicans.
However, they do not shoot back. If the targetting problems of the tidal and the
sonars were fixed, you probably wouldn’t notice or care. If the same happened to
the Pelican, you’d complain. There is an obvious difference between the two
scenarios, even if the problem is the same.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by Pic on 02-20-2002 03:29 PM:

If you sit 20 skeets around tidals and have shootall on you might as well have
shooting tidals, half yoru skeets are going to get half dead from shooting the
other skeets nearer to the tidals…

as for pels… they happen to be half underwater , or to say “swimming” and
missles are meant for anti air therefore aiming at the lower portion of a unit…
and just cause the pelican SWIMS… rather than floats like a boat… does not
mean its a bug when your anti AIR UNITS , dont shoot at a swimming unit as
well… flakkers are not able to shoot at ground units… yet in real life… if i
owned a flakker id sure aim it at a ground unit coming to me… and if i had
missles id sure aim them at subs , and if i had a nuke itd do more damage than a
small area… and if i had lotsa stuff itd do lotsa stuff …

therefore this is a game DUH … quit talking about if i had this in real life id
aim at a pel o_O

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Offspring on 02-20-2002 05:04 PM:

If MT’s are anti-air, why do they aim for all units, instead of just air? You
can’t tell me that the general-purpose defensive structure is suddenly not
actually what it seems to be. It could have been made so that they only
targetted aircraft, like Flakkers do. However this is not the case. The only
reason Pelican’s aren’t hit, are because the missles automatically aim for the
base of the unit, which is underwater in the case of the Pel. Kinda dumb, but
that’s a limitation of TA. If it aimed for the centre of the unit, Pels would be
struck by missles as easily as any other unit.

Face it; a dumb targetting error by the engine makes Pelicans super-effective
versus missles. Using Pelicans is exploiting of this error.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

[This message has been edited by Offspring (edited February 20, 2002).]

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02 PM.Pages (10): ?1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
8 9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright ?Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2004.
@Copyright 2001-2004 Nexus Entertainment, LLC.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 13 日 05:25

Posted by tau’ri01 on 02-20-2002 06:09 PM:

Yeh well then using cheap anti aircraft defences to defend against a ground/sea
assualt is cheap too. Quit complaining and build a laser tower with dts around
it. Or do you think that in any sensible situation a missile would be fired over
a dt? Does that make the dt a cheat too? What does it even matter anyway? you
know thaty the pelican has this feature. If tyhe aa defense is automated, then
it should be preprogramed to fire at a unit at a certain point. Perhaps aiming
for the bottom of an AIRCRAFT gives it the best chance of a hit, so it does
this. If you want it to do thwe multipurpose job or shooting oels then you
should tell it to shoot elsewheerre on that unit, you lazy, lazy ta player.

Its something unpredictable, but in the end is right…

Posted by NewKid on 02-20-2002 06:54 PM:

About the the pelican : if it “swims”, then it should be targeted by
submarines…, read Switeck’s BugFix doc:
“All ships are targetted correctly by missiles, SO if pelicans are in fact meant
to be a ship (but then why the Floater=0; line? – all ships have a Floater=1;
line!), subs should be able to target them. However, subs cannot target them.
(But subs can force-fire past them, hitting the Pelicans. The same trick can be
done to all Hovers.) Pelicans also have a canhover=1; line which ALL other
hovercraft have as well - which proves that Pelicans are hovercraft and not
ships. Pelicans currently use waterline=9; which is ODD because all hovercraft
lack a waterline=9; in their unit FBI file – which due to its absence defaults
to 0. So obviously, part of the Pelican is hiding below the waterline – which
is where missiles are aiming in their attempt to hit them. However 1 other fact
remains which causes the behavoir of even partially underwater Pelicans to not
make any sense: Pelicans take NO DAMAGE from acid on acid maps! As such, there
is a simple fix for the WHOLE problem: set the pelican’s waterline to 0 so it
isn’t partially underwater.”
(there is another bug in the pelican, making them mostly ignore the planes)

… Sooner or later I’ll install that patch

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 20, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by Pic on 02-20-2002 08:59 PM:

The fact of the matter is it is an ADV unit which gives it SOME speshaulties
what a coolw ay to spell that word…

if skeets where to be so great against something that requires you make adv
kbots… then it really wouldnt have a use to go adv anymore , hovers hover
meaning they are above the water… pels “swim” meaning they are in da middle ,
they are an adv kbot … not a boat… hence the SHIPYYARD SHIPPPPPPPPYYYYYYYARD
does not build them… you all want to take the micro out of ta… why? why hy
why?.. you want to lay 100 units with 2 clicks with tahook? you want to
mark things so you peep once per game… i mean geeeze… now you want it so
things that are adv are WEAK? hmmmmm ok

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by aNTiSHaTTer on 02-21-2002 01:18 AM:

hehehehehe well we can’t forget that pretty much 80% and more of the TA players
out there are newbies so I guess they wanna make it as easy as possible for
themselves… I mean gosh its not like they actually wanna LEARN the game… oh
heavens no! that’d go against their religion! Now personally I think adv
means… ADV!!! which insinuates to me ok, its better than
regular crap… so lets build this to do better than regular if we can… and if
you people ever look at some games, you’ll see that something adv can determain
the outcome of a game… I’m sure most of us have had experience with it before.

SHaTTer was HeRe

Posted by Offspring on 02-21-2002 03:29 AM:

One of TA’s biggest design criteria was to have big battles with as little micro
as possible. After a few years of being forced to micro-manage my defenses to
hit Pelicans, I am more than a little sick of it.

As you can see from Switeck’s notes, the Pelican technically is a hovercraft.
Its programmed as a hovercraft, and apart from the waterline issue, it is a
hovercraft with an animation script for when it moves across water. So many
things don’t make sense with the Pelican, as you can see. Subs and ships don’t
treat it as a ship (because it isn’t), so they don’t fire at it. When in acid,
it takes no damage, unlike every other unit that enters the water. The Pelican
is a very very bugged unit.

The sheer logic of the situation is all wrong. Common sense dictates that
Pelicans should be hittable by missles. The fact that the command interpreter AI
of the units doesn’t actually aim properly is a frustrating one, and its a
problem that should have been fixed. I seem to recall the Cavedoggies talking
about making official some of the changes Switeck implemented in Bugfix.

If you think the Pelican is still useless without these bugged issues, I can
tell you that they still kill about 3 time their metal worth of ships. They are
still very good at knocking out small fleets, and their effectiveness upon land
doesn’t change.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by BLITZ_Molloy on 02-21-2002 05:58 AM:

Yes, yes, yes! But Pics point is this is how TA is. It’s not perfect but in
reality when your playing multiplayer your going to be playing TA as Cavedog
designed it. The bugs are going to be there. You just learn how to use them,
learn how to counter them and stop bloody moaning about it. Anybody can learn
the bugs - that is not the case with a trainer - your playing with a different
game from your opponent.

So just play the game. If you feel bad about commbombing people, don’t do it. If
you like to play without aeroplanes, do it. If you don’t feel Starking Mohos is
right, don’t doi it. But don’t go trying to dictate how we play the game - we
all have digfferent moral standards and opinions on what is right or wrong but
it all pans out fine if you try your best, treat people with respect and let
them use whatever features of TA they want. If the bugs annoyed everybody so
much we’d be playing bugfix.

.::…::ucs::… …::blitz::…::.

Altered Beast | UberCrack Shack | BLITZ Clan
Latest Annihilarity: Annihilarity: Weapon Inspection II

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-21-2002 09:02 AM:

As Molly and Pic have been trying to explain to you - TA plays fine with these
‘bugs’ - in fact in some cases (pelican) it makes some games better. Just think
of what you did on GoW before CC came out, compared to the different ways you
can play it now - more fun and a lot more difficult. Pels require you to have
more SKILL in micromanagement - and for those of you who say this isnt what TA
is about - go and play your PD Marathons and GD2 Ground Wars some more and let
us play TA how we want to - fun and requiring skill not just unit numbers.

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-21-2002 12:47 PM:

I am sure many threads have been devoted to unit balance and tactics. This
thread is about how to tell when a bug exploit is cheating. There are lots of
bugs in the units and because you cant tell the users intent you cant condemn
him for using the unit in a certain way. The resource tricks I outlined are
cheating because of intent and other aspects.

Please keep this thread on topic. Don’t let those with no good arguments claim
they are making a logical point by listing all the bugs in the game.

I have been experimenting with panthers in a WAN game and think they generate so
much lag, in numbers, that enemy defenses actually stop firing back. That
certainly seems unfair. It is not cheating to use them.

“(but then why the Floater=0; line? – all ships have a Floater=1;” I deal with
“floaters” by flushing twice.

Page 5! Is that a record?

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 13 日 05:25

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-21-2002 01:31 PM:

No longest ever was something stupid like 20 pages; ‘Best players/clans who are
they?!’ i think it was called.

But i still disaggree with you - I am not a cheater, have never cheated in TA,
and never will cheat in TA. All people who play with me say i am a fair and nice
person to play with - regardless of these bugs. You have to think about the fact
that using Multi-air-reclaim or Moho-sparking are NOT going to win you games -
skill will, they are just part of the game you have to get on with and not try
to ban them or not allow them to be used. I bet your a person who argues for
flashes to be banned cos ‘they lag too much’. I for one have not seen lag in a
recent game which affected the outcome at all, and when you play people who
still use modems (Preen, Evilscott) you are seeing the worst of what lag is
nowadays. If i play someone who is on Cable connection as well i dont see lag
even on massive PD games so i dont aggree with the comment about Panthers
either.

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 02-21-2002 01:38 PM:

Pic moans about TA bugs being a serious prob so heres a question for him;

“Describe the perfect game”

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by Abe on 02-21-2002 02:05 PM:

Oh it was far more then 20 pages, and it wasn磘 stupid! My 15 minutes of fame
creating that thread…

But I think I had as much success finding out who the best player was, as Pelvis
attempt to convince us that we are cheaters.

<–Abe–>

Posted by aNTiSHaTTer on 02-21-2002 05:05 PM:

da perfect game is no game at all

SHaTTer was HeRe

Posted by Pic on 02-21-2002 06:01 PM:

The perfect game is where i get married n make babays

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Pic on 02-21-2002 06:03 PM:

theres a thread on rambles and fun thats like 15 or something… and um…
perfect game = equalish players … TOP NOTCH same comps same conns o_O seven
islands 2500 unit patch

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-21-2002 06:17 PM:

Abe- you can always stop cheating now and stop all your friends from cheating.
It should be easy as they seem to think the cheating does not make much of a
difference. Start with Novice as we have him on record as saying his cheating
does not make much of a difference.

I can’t tell you how many times I have too much energy and no metal and wish I
could spark the mmm I am trying to build. Try living w/o it and see hom many
times you ‘wish’ you could spark. It will change your mind about how much
difference it makes.

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Pic on 02-21-2002 06:47 PM:

well in the last 6 games where i was making a moho … they all got sparked and
not by me so STFU

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Xavier on 02-21-2002 06:51 PM:

if 100 ppl are playing darts and one guy doesn’t know that spinning the dart as
u throw it makes it more accurate, and the other 99 ppl get good scores, then
that one guy runs around calling everyone cheats - then who’s the loser?

Posted by Pic on 02-21-2002 06:53 PM:

that dude who droped it on his foot is a loser… that musta sucked

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-22-2002 01:22 PM:

Xavier’s last post is termed a “straw man” logical fallacy.

In Darts, the rule is you may throw the dart at the board any way you like as
long as you use your hand and don’t cross the fault line with your feet. This
thread is not about cheating in darts.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited February 22, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Abe on 02-22-2002 02:13 PM:

Ok Pelvis, since you didn磘 respond to my last (serious) post regarding your
crusade let me spell it out like this:

Nobody cares.

That simple enough? To make a change in TA you need some support, get some
backup from the respected players. Authority.
If Pic, Barbar, Novice, Xavier etc accepted your list it probably would have
made a new standard. But they don磘. In fact, the only person who shows any
support over this 5 page thread is Newkid. But Im not sure he磗 totally
convinced either.
Logic or not, fallacy or not, your way of playing and defining TA is a minority,
perhaps even limited to yourself. Dunno what you value the most, but to me the
actual gameplay on Zone, GBL, LAN and IP games is what counts. Not theories on a
messageboard. And I have yet to see a game, player, tournament or ladder that
uses your cheat definition.

Congrats, you almost won a messageboard argument about a game you can磘 win.

<–Abe–>

Posted by Xavier on 02-22-2002 03:10 PM:

i laugh at ppl who try to point out logical problems in statements that are
obviously tongue in cheek.

Posted by NewKid on 02-22-2002 03:37 PM:

The fact is that the people speaking the most are against these rules… But
also that some people says in the chat room on zone “ok, without cheating”,
knowing what I’m talking about… (Some say “I liked your post, those cheaters
are morons”, too ) Others now know these bugs and may choose to use it. That’s
why this thread is useful, and Pelvis is just as right as you “vets” are.

“Vets” (at least, the speaking ones) have learn the game as a whole including
bugs and lag effects (how to exploit, how to defend against the exploitation)
and wouldn’t like to lose parts of these skills, just because some people not
having even played on boneyard with a 14.4 modem shows them there are flaws in
their logic.

They admit there are “glitches” in the units scripts, and probably would admit a
3.2 patch correcting it, but ahem Cavedog is dead, RIP.

There’s no need to say “one way is beter than the other”… I love playing 1v1
on a big non-metal map with no off-edge or MMM sparking… But sometimes I play
2v2 or metal maps and so on… Less fun, but well…

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 22, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 13 日 05:26

Posted by Pic on 02-22-2002 04:24 PM:

For your information … people who exploit lag are lame… not very many do it…

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by NewKid on 02-22-2002 08:45 PM:

Even if you dont want to exploit lag, it may change the outcome of a game… And
always changes the balance of the game, ie the practical usefulness of the
weapons… The game is not exactly the same with 5sec lag than with .2 sec
lag… On http://www.tcbw.net/ta/idxDLTA.html you can see some games where lag
is an issue But well, I don’t say people are (always) cheating when they are
lagging

I think that for “vets”, the lag is like the weather in a true battle : you just
have to adapt, and have strats that will work even if there is lag…

[This message has been edited by NewKid (edited February 22, 2002).]

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-22-2002 09:25 PM:

Abe- CBL bans moho sparking. The board administrator thinks this is cheating. My
guess is that the majority of players that agree with me, feel there is nothing
more that needs to be said. Being the majority in no way makes cheating okay.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Pic on 02-22-2002 09:54 PM:

you must cheat you always try to get the last word and say enough has been
said… so plz shutup and let this cheatar speak last … also cbl in no way is a
true testement in to what is cheating… just because a group of ta players made
a tourney and bann something means nothing… i dont spark flour and multi
reclaim unless its funny as hell atm that i do it… but if im really trying i
have no time for that crap… and im sure most other players that do it dont do
it cause it makes them win that game… also , no one directs people to this
thread cept yourself i can not see why this is such a big deal to you… i just
wander what goes on in your head about all this cause all you say is what others
think on this thread and say what people say are wrong you never have real REAL
arguements jsut opinions that you seem to think are facts because they are yours
… well whatver bye

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Annihilater2k1 on 02-22-2002 10:48 PM:

Goooooo pic its yer birthday.

The weak have one weapon, the over-confidence of those who think they are
strong.

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-23-2002 02:56 AM:

Newkid- Pelvis has been playing TA as long as anyone could have played TA. I
just don’t post on boards unless I have an important point to make.

Xavier- I knew you must be kidding with your silly dart analogy, but wanted to
make sure nobody got confused and thought you had made your first valid point.

Abe- I am not trying to convince you to change the way you play. I just want
someone to convince me that it is okay for me to cheat the way I have seen so
many times in the last 2 years. None of you have fielded arguments that move me
any closer to thinking that my standard for fair play is wrong. If anything, I
now think that nanoshielding with the demo recorder is probably cheating.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-23-2002 08:05 AM:

But i dont think you realise that there are literally HUNDREDS of things in TA
which we could call cheating;
Pelicans, Flashes, Berthas, Nukes, Nano-blocking, moho sparking, stuffing
factories, using Mt’s to hit groud units, building massed samsons, extra-ranging
berthas/buzzsaws, firing rockos at tops of hills so the rockets go miles, using
flying bombs, multi-bombing.
Hell these are just a few which i could put down right now - if we start banning
things like this TA will become more and more boring - just allow them all and
HAVE FUN.

Posted by BLITZ_Molloy on 02-23-2002 08:49 AM:

Yes. Novice has it exactly there.

You either accept the game as it is an just stop nitpicking or you go play Red
Alert 2 or something. It’s the way it is and nit picking won’t change anything.

.::…::ucs::… …::blitz::…::.

Altered Beast | UberCrack Shack | BLITZ Clan
Latest Annihilarity: Annihilarity: Weapon Inspection II

Posted by NewKid on 02-23-2002 09:09 AM:

Well, it has changed something : now you see people saying “no cheats” before to
play, or in the game info on zone. Furthermore, they know what they have to
watch in the demos to check if someone cheated them in the case the rules were
“no cheats”

TA has no standard. That’s a fact. A fact gentlemen have to face. Gentlemen
don’t insult each other for such small things. I say.

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-23-2002 11:52 AM:

Yes but you dont see any decent players saying that.

Posted by NewKid on 02-23-2002 02:25 PM:

Hehe, well, who cares about decency?
You know, a good opponent, for me, is one having my level… Fun is more
relevant than victory
I saw today a game info saying : “Experts will be bored, newbees will be
toasted”. That’s my level. I don’t care about being decent Just wanna have fun
by playing a game, and of course learning it…

Some chicken! Some neck!

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-23-2002 05:52 PM:

Yes feel free to play the game how you wish - and i want to do the same. Just
dont go around saying im a cheater cos i spark moho’s, multi-reclaim or do any
of the million other problems in TA.

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-24-2002 09:18 PM:

I am in the process of proving the assertion that some of these bug exploits are
cheating. I think any reasonable person reading this thread will see that you
have failed to provide any valid argument to the proof I offer. This sort of
behavior degrades the quality of play over time. The Gnugs published many of
these exploits years ago and I didn’t see them used much. In the past year, more
and more people have been proud to claim that they have discovered new bugs. It
is certainly nice to know about these bugs, but reprehensible to use them in a
friendly game. Winning at all costs is reserved for real war. This is a game for
fun. Noone should have to state “no trainer” or “no resource bug exploits”
before a game. Why don’t you let your parents read this thread and see what they
think? I blame them for your inability to see the light.

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 13 日 05:26

Posted by BLITZ_Molloy on 02-25-2002 03:01 AM:

Pelvis. We just have different opinions on choice than you do. We don’t see the
Moho Spart as a bug, we see it as a feature. For all we know maybe the nano bots
that make up TA units can be manipulated before the frame is finished. Like real
life we cannot explain everything but we have the right to utilise our
environment to the best of our abilities.

Now if I used a trainer and you were able to do things I was’nt that would be
cheating. But the fact of the matter is we’re both playing with identical copies
of Total Annihilation. Nobody has an unfair advantage over someone else.
Theoptions are available to everybody.

The problem is that when you start calling things bugs and making rules your
destroying TA. Your limiting our freedom to play the game as was originally
intended by the creators. You can tell us that you think certain units are
overpowered and therefore should be banned. But this is a very subjective way of
deciding what is wrong and right. It’s best to just accept the game as it is,
enjoy it, don’t do things that make you feel uncomfortable but let us get the
hell on with playing the game without limitations.

Your like a vegetarian who thinks eating meat is wrong and tries to enforce this
law on the rest of us. Just mind your own businness, do what you feel is right,
and don’t try and enforce your values system on us by taking the moral high
ground and threatening to tell our parents! Got that?

[edit]I myself have my own code of homor. I never, ever commander bomb people.
Thats my rule. I used to try to enforce it on other people but that is just
being ignorant. If your speaking the truth here about not being overly concerned
about winning you would’nt be flouring on about tiny bugs that make little or no
difference. The people who play TA are very varied. We range from the ages of 8
to 80. We come from hundreds of different countries. This means you have to be
tolerant of other peoples beliefs and just uphold your own beliefs if your ever
going to remain sane and balanced.

.::…::ucs::… …::blitz::…::.

[This message has been edited by BLITZ_Molloy (edited February 25, 2002).]

Altered Beast | UberCrack Shack | BLITZ Clan
Latest Annihilarity: Annihilarity: Weapon Inspection II

Posted by Screamer on 02-25-2002 07:38 AM:

Why is everyone still posting here?

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by Vali on 02-25-2002 11:43 AM:

??

Posted by tcbw on 02-25-2002 01:05 PM:

No Molloy you are wrong. The sole fact that someone runs the the identical copy
of TA you have installed on your computer does NOT imply he has the KNOWLEDGE
about these bugs. If you play a TA newbie or even a seasoned player they
probably do not know anything about all those little nice advantages you can get
out of TA IF you have the knowledge.

If I was wrong and your assumption that any TA player knows about these bugs is
true, then tell me why so many ppl posting in this thread are completely
suprised to hear about all this stuff?

That’s why I avoid to use any of the resource bugs: I never know if my opponent
has the knowledge how to make use of them. It’s quite frustrating to see the
other player sparking their MMM or using multiple relcaiming later when
reviewing the recording but I still consider that the better solution because
MOST of the ppl I play either make the same assumption as I do or actually do
not know about the bugs at all.

– tcbw

404 - PeterC may have stolen this page

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

Posted by BLITZ_Molloy on 02-25-2002 01:48 PM:

I can’t get the MMM bug to work. I’ve tried it a few times. I put this down to
my own lack of intelligence and skill. I don’t blame someone else for knowing
something I don’t.

.::…::ucs::… …::blitz::…::.

Altered Beast | UberCrack Shack | BLITZ Clan
Latest Annihilarity: Annihilarity: Weapon Inspection II

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02 PM.Pages (10): ?1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7
8 9 10 ?
Show 40 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright ?Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2004.
@Copyright 2001-2004 Nexus Entertainment, LLC.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 13 日 05:26

Posted by Xavier on 02-25-2002 02:08 PM:

umm if someone i play doesn’t know how to line bomb does that mean i can’t
either? or if the person i’m playing doesn’t know how to control his flashes
well does that mean i have to use mine crappy too? hmmm

anyway - this whole thread is simply about opinion. u can’t talk about proof or
validity or anything like that because the bottom line is - its up to each
individual to form his own opinion on whether using these things is wrong.

my own opinion (as stated b4) - using bugs isn’t cheating, its just lame.

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-25-2002 02:10 PM:

Malloy-“Your limiting our freedom to play the game as was originally intended by
the creators.”

I think Screamer pointed out that the mmm sparking was not intended by the
creators.

I have said nothing about banning units or unit strengths. It is behavior I am
concerned about.

WooHoo! Page 6! Page 25 here we come!

Screamer checks his drive space

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Screamer on 02-25-2002 03:33 PM:

Well some things were quite clearly not intended.

Others are a grey area, and yet others are really just a matter of opinion. I
attribute pretty much everything that may have been unintended but is possible
due to TA using a real physics engine to the grey area and have no qualms about
using those (like overshooting or offscreen planes or targetting MTs at
mountaintops) - but I recognize they can sometimes ruin a game so I use them
with consideration.

What is not just possible because of the physics engine but is clearly an oddity

like MMM sparking, multireclaim and Krog cloning (though the later never
happens in multi) - is well, maybe not cheating in the same sense as using a
trainer but at any rate utterly lame.

I put the distinction there because it is as close to “objective” as one can
get; otherwise we’d end up discussing whether DTing towers is valid (someone
once posted here that he felt DT were far too cheap for the advantage they
provided).

But if two players between them agree to use the bugs, who am I or who are you
to tell them otherwise? It’s a different matter in games one plays in, but to
judge the entire community by one’s own standards is a bit overbearing…

(Can someone tell how a misnomer like “common sense” could happen? And why are
we still posting here?)

The taste of truth is bitter. | You can lead an idiot to
knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

The beauty of the world has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting
the heart asunder.
Virginia Woolf

Posted by tcbw on 02-25-2002 03:49 PM:

Xavier, it’s much more likely someone can figure out how to use a unit best by
trial and error. After the 50th game even a new player will understand how
flashes work best.

Regarding the line bombing example: At least it’s obvoius for the TA player that
something happened he had never seen before. He will probably asking after the
game how you did that. But with resource flaws it’s not likely that the new
player is even aware of the situation. He will just wondering how you have been
able to overrrun him so easily.
Oh, and I’m sure a lot of our ‘expert’ players will even make fun of the poor
new TA player if he kindly asks how they pulled a certaion trick of.

It’s just such a satisfication to feel better than someone else - if not real
live than at least when it comes to online gaming, right?

In contrast to that it’s not very likely they stumble into the sparking thing or
the reclaim bug. Even not after the 50th game. A lot of these flaws have only
been found because so many people played the game in the early days of TA. It
was just much more likely one of the 1000000 TA players would run into the MMM
sparking mechanism by accident. I have to add that even back in those days the
‘elite’ clans kept such knowledge for themselves to gain advantage over other
players. In other words joining a clan could be associated with getting
inaugurated in the clan’s very private TA bug knowledge. Well, until the GNUGs
came that is.

I just reviewed a recording because somone told me a certain well known TA
player in that game was using a resource cheat. He wasn’t cheating but he knew
how to use those c-planes for multi reclaim. Isn’t it sad that the use of so
called flaws can lead to such wrong cheating accusations?

– tcbw

404 - PeterC may have stolen this page

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-25-2002 06:52 PM:

I copied this from the rules section of the Protahertz competition site.

“Use of TA Engine Bugs
There are two bugs in the TA engine that should be restricted from use. The
multi-air con reclaim bug and the Moho MetalMaker activation bug should not be
used in any games. Intentional usage of either of these is grounds for a dispute
and forfeiture of the game for your team.”

http://www.protahertz.net/ta/ladder/rules.php

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited March 01, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by The Barbar on 02-25-2002 08:47 PM:

In 2 of the ladder games I have played people have sparked moho’s and I have
not. I won’t report them or whine that they broke the rules because the rules
are stupid.

Really crappy people say rushing is cheap and lame only because they find it to
be so hard to stop. All you who are against the bugs are doing what the really
crap people are doing, your just slightly less crap.

[This message has been edited by The Barbar (edited February 25, 2002).]

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-25-2002 10:34 PM:

Barbar- by not reporting the cheaters, you are engaged in complicity in the
violation and cheat the other players that will face them in the contest.

At least a contest judge would have to look at it that way.

I won’t report you because I am not in the contest.

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-26-2002 02:43 AM:

Well if you REALLY want me to start copying things and posting them here…

“Use Of TA Bug Engine
The fact of TA having any types of bugs built in is bogus. Many people have come
up with the myth of 2 main bugs in TA. That would include the sparkling of the
Moho Metal Maker and the multi reclaiming bug. This is a big LIE. The fact of
using more cons to reclaim wrecks is called strategy. The time the player takes
to get all those cons and reclaim the rocks or wrecks is typically strategic.
The opponent has much faster time to get the wrecks with one con unit then
allowing his opponent to build multiple cons. As for starting up the Moho Metal
Maker before it is fully built is allowed as well. The reason is that if you
have enough energy in your storage there is no reason in not activating the moho
earlier. Its actually a disadvantage if you look at it. I mean once you activate
it you cant turn it off till its fully built. This can drain ones energy right
away and will cause them to destruct it and build it all over. Besides how can
you tell if one deactivate the Moho purposely in the heat of battle or his aim
just happened to be a bit off.”

From the rules at Tournament Warz

Posted by tcbw on 02-26-2002 07:51 AM:

Are you kidding? Go play on a uraban map where you have all those 5k and 10k
buildings. It’s not a matter of strategy: It will pay off to wait for like 3
c-units since you get 15-30k metal from one building rather than 5-10k. Are you
gonna tell me the other player starting to reaclim one of those structures
earlier with only ONE c-unit would have an advantage?

Then take a look at King of the Hill, same here. It pays off to wait for at
least 2 c-planes since there is so much metal to reclaim. In fact, the multi
recalim bug pays of on any map with enough buildings/rocks to reclaim.

And if it was no advantage at all - why use ppl those bugs? I mean if they
really make no difference for the outcomming of the game why are they defended
so much by certain ppl? Couldn’t you just ignore the bugs and not use them if
they were NOT so important in terms of advantages? Obvoiusly not…

Again, I don’t consider the use of those bugs cheating IF everyone in a
multiplayer game would know about them. It’s pretty easy to decide what to do if
you play a game with ppl you know well but once you play someone you never met
before you never can know if they are aware of those flaws or not.

– tcbw

404 - PeterC may have stolen this page

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

Posted by DOGGY on 02-26-2002 09:08 AM:

to nov: read the former posts plz

i want another bug that shouldnt be used:
the i-see-where-u-reclaim-your-rocks-BUG

u can see which rocks get reclaimed and u can coordinate your flash-attacks on
pd, for example to kill those poor, helpless construction vehicles.

And on gow u can guess what strat your opponent is doing.

and u can see if he shoots, for example to reclaim a plant faster.

THOSE ARE BUGS TOO; BECAUSE U GET INFORMATION FOR NOTHING; DONT LOOK AT YOUR
OPPONENTS BASE!!!

To make sure that u dont cheat in that way, u MUST turn .sharemappos on. Of
course, if u are host in a 2v2 and u get killed, u have to leave, because your
partner can still see the .sharemappos.

xpoy0 · 2009 年9 月 13 日 05:26

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-26-2002 09:58 AM:

sigh you people really think i use these everygame? Gimme a break - i hardly
ever use them because they dont make much difference. Yes multireclaim does help
a lot on urban maps - but you try doing in on KOTH and you will suddenly notice
the guy has sams there and is already reclaiming so your screwed. Same with the
MMM sparking - they take hardly any time to build so sparking doesnt give you an
advantage. The things doggy just mentioned are bugs - but there is no way to
control over people using them.

[EDIT] Oh yeah if its soo frequently used and soo useful - name the last time
you saw someone do it in a GoW 1v1…

[This message has been edited by A_Novice_ToS (edited February 26, 2002).]

Posted by tcbw on 02-26-2002 11:49 AM:

The question was never if there are means to control the use of the bugs. The
original question was if it’s legit for you to use them without knowing for sure
that your opponent knows them too.

And we both know GOW is a bad example for the use of the reclaiming bug.
Thinking about it, I’ll probably get some of those old BY recordings from the
DAT tapes and review some of the games played on Esatside/Westside or Town &
Country…

Oh, and for KOTH it works pretty well in a FFA. Noone will really risk too many
units at center in order to keep the WHOLE center free of c-planes. The small
area closest to your start position will give you enough rocks to multi reclaim,
and you will have no problem to keep this area free of Samsosn/slashers (except
two or more other players attack you at the same time).

– tcbw

404 - PeterC may have stolen this page

“Because really, when you get down on your knees on the pew, you’re just giving
God a blow job.”

White Mike in Nick McDonell’s “Twelve”

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-26-2002 01:52 PM:

tcbw- Sorry, you are restating my case. My goal is to prove that certain bugs
are cheating no matter what. It does not matter if all players have knowledge of
these bugs.

Novice- has not read the previous posts, as I tore the “disadvantage”
justification apart. As far as mmm building fast, if you are out of metal the
mmm builds real slow unless you spark it, and then it pays for itself. Once you
spark it, why even bother finishing it? you can just nurse it with one regular
const unit. See my point?!

It was pointed out that you can accidently multi-reclaim when two units happen
to reclaim the same rock while on patrol. This would not be cheating as you
cannot determine intent. Stacking the const units and forcing them over the same
spot and then reclaiming to get X宇宙 the metal intended by the designers, would be
cheating.

Anyone know which factory scrap is multi-reclaimable? Someone said certain types
of factory scrap were.

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Offspring on 02-26-2002 02:46 PM:

The only way this argument can ever be finished, would seem to lie on the
opinions of the Cavedog staff. If the chance was ever given to ask the team as a
whole, they could surely give us a definite answer as to what was a bug,
unintended to be in the engine, and what they would fix and remove from the game
to make it better. Until then I don’t think that this ever extends to more than
just personal preference.

My personal preference is not to really think of these in such black and white
as a player is cheating by using a certain engine bug to his advantage. Rather,
I consider all the aformentioned techniques to be an underhanded way to play.
Deliberate off-screen bombing can only be described as an underhanded way to
“bypass” enemy defenses. MMM sparking is an underhanded way of getting more
resources out of your MMM if your opponent does not realize that this can be
done.

I don’t use these kind of techniques, and I know I never will. Sure I might lose
more games this way, but the ones I win bring a certain satisfaction that I
played the game more the way I feel it was intended.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by Pic on 02-26-2002 02:51 PM:

Someone is an idiot whoever said that wrecks are multiable are wierdohs its not
happinin…

and errrr UMMMMM, mohos cost 52 metal… if you are outa metal… its pretty hard
to stall on the moho for long at all

[The]-[Pic]┊?

Posted by Xavier on 02-26-2002 02:58 PM:

yah just reclaim a 25 rock with 2 cons lmao

Posted by PelvisRocks on 02-26-2002 05:07 PM:

Offspring- “underhanded” is one health tick from “cheating”

[This message has been edited by PelvisRocks (edited February 26, 2002).]

I was PelvisPressMe in a past life.

Posted by Offspring on 02-26-2002 06:02 PM:

Agreed , but the difference is significant. Besides, the underhanded ones are
more likely to accept the title, because it implies an ammount of cunning and
deviousness, qualities that are good for a tactition. Wheras cheating suggest
the player has no skill and must cheat to win.

Offspring - Webmaster for Nexus Entertainment and Phoenix Worx

Project Hardpoint - the future of RTS

Great leaders use words to solve conflicts.
Words like carpet bomb and nukes.

Posted by A_Novice_ToS on 02-27-2002 02:29 AM:

Jeez man - are you PeterC or something? You fail to answer my legit questions
each time and just come up with ‘Your wrong!’ You still have in no way at all
made me even the slightest worried about using these features in the TA engine -
so i will continue to do so because you are the only person i have ever known to
complain about them.

Posted by Pic on 02-27-2002 04:39 AM:

Novice and pelvis you are both POST cheaters… your arguements are nothing… and
you want SOMETHING for it YOU CHEATERS!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[The]-[Pic]┊?