Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: [A] Teams All Welcome (32p)
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K 1.10.7.0
Engine version: 105.1.1-841-g099e9d0
Started: 7 days ago
Duration: 34 minutes
Players: 29
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download


Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (28 records)
sort

7 days ago
Demonstartion of terraform bug abuse that prevents building targetting, fleas despite being next to singularity cannot engage it as they can't path or aim at it.
+1 / -2

7 days ago
Outlaw
+1 / -0

7 days ago
Yes let me just raid the enemy eco with 29 DPS "raiders" because terraforming breaks the game, only got to spend a minute straight next to it if I bring 2.
+2 / -0
Calling this a "bug" is wrong. Bugs are software defects. Terraform is a fully intentional feature. Use cases leading to targeting/pathing problems for the enemy is literally half the entire point of terraform. (The other half being creating mobility advantages for yourself)

While you're at it how about you call crab being unable to shoot raiders up close a "bug"?
+2 / -2

6 days ago
Crab shouldn't need manual micro to attack nearby units, I would call it a bug yes. If I have to force fire my unit to perform an attack that it can't do only due to bugs in the AI/pathfinding/aiming then yes it is a bug.
+2 / -5

6 days ago
lob lob

+3 / -0


6 days ago
quote:
Bugs are software defects.

If it surprised a decent proportion of users and made them unhappy then it's a bug.
+2 / -3
quote:
If it surprised a decent proportion of users and made them unhappy then it's a bug.


It is not regardless of how many people are unhappy. If the entire point of a system is to gain gameplay advantages via terrain manipulation and a targeting issue arises from it, it is working as intended (not a bug). What you're wanting to say is that the gameplay that emerges from the system is degenerative.

Calling design you disagree with "bugs" is just disrespectful to the designer. Consider the communication being made: "this thing you took time and effort to design isn't working correctly according to my design. Change it." That's pretty disrespectful to the person/people who put time and effort into making the design. We can call a design "unfun" or "degenerative", and that's fine but to go as far as calling it a bug when its working as intended by the developer has very unhealthy undertones that should not be ignored.

The uncomfortable truth is that by placing so many players in a game, they have enough time/attention to perform such actions like jack cannon. As a result, you get things like this happening in response to the new "funny strategy" of the month. The problem is only exacerbated by the large cap on the playercount causing people to funnel into one game which not only prevents social stigmatization but makes transmission of the strategy ridiculously fast. There's just going to be yet another "degenerative strategy" constantly that will need more interventionism until we're left with a bland game.

Nuances like crab not being able to fire at nearby raiders is what makes the game interesting and prevents units from being a bunch of near-carbon copies of each other.
+3 / -2


5 days ago
First "cheating", now "bug", soon "blasphemy"? :P
+1 / -0


5 days ago
USrankShaman: You're wrong both in the general and the specific.

In the specific I bet the AUrankAdminGoogleFrog's design intent is NOT that fleas etc. sit there trying and failing to attack an elevated singu. For evidence, this got merged: https://github.com/ZeroK-RTS/Zero-K/pull/3741

In general, in my experience in software and professional services if the user is unpleasantly surprised then that's a problem and gets filed as a bug. It may just be a documentation bug but it's a bug.
+3 / -0

5 days ago
USrankShaman a common error indie devs commit is thinking their design is absolute, devoid of unclarity and universal to all observers. A modder may intentionally design a hard crash to desktop to occur when it detects competitors mod. It doesn't matter what the author intended, to a user it will look like a bug.

Demanding respect in response to a differing perception between user and developer is destructive. It's not an reciprocal relationship, users do not owe developers anything, developers fight over user attention. There's always exceptions to everything, but truth is that the common user does not care for your struggle. They are here to consume a product.
+2 / -1
quote:
It's not an reciprocal relationship, users do not owe developers anything. [...] They are here to consume a product.

For the most part I do dislike terraform but please keep in mind Zero-K is completely free. I don't think anyone, including players, are owed anything.
+1 / -0

5 days ago
USrankcabinboy it's understandable you missed the point as it was not addressed to you, it's in response to a post about how intent of author is something sacred. Price doesn't have to be money. There's a lot of effort put into attracting players and making a game popular regardless of monetary outcome.
+1 / -0


5 days ago
quote:
Demanding respect in response to a differing perception between user and developer is destructive.


There is nothing wrong with the idea of humans being entitled to basic respect and it should be an expectation. Given how consistently disparaging and disrespectful you are to members of this community, I cannot in good faith give any credit to your argument being anything other than an excuse to be a toxic entitled prick. The fact you exaggerate my argument for basic respect towards hard working people into "design is sacred" when I clearly focused on the undertones of calling design you disagree/dislike a bug has got to be some of the most honesty bankrupt behavior I've seen yet.

quote:
In general, in my experience in software and professional services if the user is unpleasantly surprised then that's a problem and gets filed as a bug. It may just be a documentation bug but it's a bug.


World of difference between internally referring it to a bug and a player calling it a bug. I can see calling it internally a bug and I have no problem with that. My point I made here is specially about the undertones of external people calling it a bug. I'm specifically calling the player doing it potentially harmful. There may be nuances in perception based on whether or not that video game is self-expressive art or a product to be sold. This requires some development.

quote:
For the most part I do dislike terraform but please keep in mind Zero-K is completely free. I don't think anyone, including players, are owed anything.


This is a much more reasonable attitude. Though I'd argue that even money exchanging hands does not give you the right to be disrespectful. If we switch out the money part for food, does giving someone food give you the right to be an ass towards that person or their work? Is that food going to make the person more happy than what the disrespect took away from them? Consider also how much work they put into what you're taking from them to make you happy.
+1 / -1

5 days ago
USrankShaman
quote:
toxic entitled prick

How does this work, you insult me and make up stories while claiming some higher ground?
+1 / -0


5 days ago
quote:
How does this work, you insult me and make up stories while claiming some higher ground?


quote:
it's understandable you missed the point as it was not addressed to you


So by making condescending remarks like this consistently and belittling your fellow community members, I'm somehow making stories up. Let me get this straight: you can insult and belittle your fellow community members, but as soon as someone does it back to you, it's suddenly wrong.
+0 / -0
USrankShaman I don't see how that is condescending or belittling. I'm not an American and not a native english speaker, maybe that's why you find my way of writing so offensive? I'd ask you to be more tolerant but I know you'd just think it's me trying to make fun of you again lol
+0 / -0
quote:
I don't see how that is condescending or belittling.

quote:
Lawesome9 why are you even in this topic if you don't know how metal extractors work?

Hopefully you see how that could be rude. I forgive you though, and hope you do better next time. This is a great community, and it's sad to see everyone fight all the time.
Have a great day, play the game, discuss how to improve the game without insulting each other, and have fun.

On a side note, I do like terraform even though it's a bit buggy. If it's buggy, it can be fixed, and (getting back to the original topic of this thread) I do think that something should be done about units/buildings on high platforms messing up units, as this does seem wrong, whether it is a bug or not. Fleas are all-terrain units after all.

I have played other RTS games without terraforming, and wished there was terraforming. (I have also tried to use ZK commands in other games, it doesn't work very well.)

quote:
Crab shouldn't need manual micro to attack nearby units, I would call it a bug yes. If I have to force fire my unit to perform an attack that it can't do only due to bugs in the AI/pathfinding/aiming then yes it is a bug.

I would disagree with this, as it is fully intentional behavior that is not a bug, as USrankShaman said.
I believe the intention of AI in ZK (correct me if I'm wrong) is to be a placeholder for the input of the player, and that there is an intentional assumption that the player can always do better than the AI (and supposed to be able to), but the player can't do everything at once.
+2 / -0
5 days ago
quote:
I would disagree with this, as it is fully intentional behavior that is not a bug
Things are not always binary, because there are also external factors, like the game engine (not done in the context of Zero-K and harder to change). The fact that units target the center of the enemy, and they need to see that to be allowed to shoot, is neither a bug, nor intended behavior, it's just a fact. For some things is good (first, it works, and probably it's quite fast computationally) for other things is bad (units can't fire if they don't see the center even if they see a side of a unit).

It would be great if people would focus on the communication and intention, rather than on focusing on words/people. I can dislike/like a player and agree/disagree with them on a particular topic. I sometimes wish not seeing who has posted a specific comment to be more objective when I send a reply but I am too lazy to do that...

The targeting interaction with terraforming seems to generate lots of headaches/frustrations, but personally would prefer we generally keep terraforming as it is until a clearly good solution is found (or individual solutions like the building footprint suggested - although not sure if it can be implemented reasonably)

+2 / -0

5 days ago
Yes, that is all correct, but I was referring to the specific behavior of crab not being able to shoot raiders (or other fast units) that are circling it because of its slow turret turn speed. As far as I know, this is intentional.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (28 records)