Ships "Funny Hull" - a commonly known phenomenon?

[Morbad]

Phew - an expert turned up So much for being a new bannable cheat

Well, I certainly don't think that FDev's intent was for for ships shrug off ~85% of the damage from a given type without significant downsides elsewhere. They just always had a bad system for stacking resistances that was made even worse when they had to inflate the snot out of the figures to depreciate grandfathered armor.

I don't think calling a bug exploit is out of line, but it's something that's been around so long and has relatively little in the way of practical effects (mostly because of the game's other failings) that it's also no unreasonable to conclude that it's tacitly accepted.

 

[nanothargon]

Sure it’s a bug, but does this actually give an unfair advantage? Seems like a lot of time and effort to build a ship that’s great against one specific thing, but isn’t actually a viable PvP ship? I mean, I don’t have the mats to try this out, and it sounds like nobody else here is interested either… so, non-issue, no?

Shield tank cutters and meta FDLs are surely closer to a genuinely unfair advantage?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It's in the bug tracker and acknowledged, so Frontier know about it.

Issue Tracker

issues.frontierstore.net

Of course, it's been acknowledged in the bug tracker since before the Odyssey release so it's probably one of those "there's always a more important bug" problems.

 

[Kayvan]

btw sorry if I sound daft, what is "shadow ramming"?
(I don't do PVP so I guess there's just some nomenclature I've never come across)

 

[Jmanis]

...no unreasonable to conclude that it's tacitly accepted.

Except for the part of FDs EULA which basically says the exact opposite of that. (Tl;dr failure to act is not endorsement)

 

[Morbad]

btw sorry if I sound daft, what is "shadow ramming"?
(I don't do PVP so I guess there's just some nomenclature I've never come across)

The game is not fully synchronous so can present divergent perspectives to combatants engaged in the same battle. A shadow ram is what happens when one client can see a collision happen, but the other one may think they have hundreds of meters to spare before a collision, yet both register the impact's damage. Ultimately, it makes avoiding collisions much harder for those attempting to do so as the way latency compensation works gives the attacker precedence, if either client sees themselves as doing damage, that damage is done, even if the other clients perceive the attacks as being impossible. Thus you can have a ship that looks like it's pointing away from you landing all of it's his or a ship that appears to pass 600m away deal damage as if it collided dead on. It's especially pronounced when clients have significant pings to each other or when the instance is overloaded.

Since the modus operandi of most plasma boats is to get as close as possible before taking the shot (high-speed co-orbiting with both combatants loosing shots as they approach the perigee is typical), collisions, intentional or otherwise, are common.

Except for the part of FDs EULA which basically says the exact opposite of that. (Tl;dr failure to act is not endorsement)

The EULA says a lot of stuff that if taken literally would result in half the player base being banned. It's boilerplate ass coverage so they aren't liable for any action or inaction, but have technicalities to fall back on when and if they find it useful to do so.

It's also difficult to prove intent. Some of the players in this thread may acknowledge that something is off about damage resistance stacking, but chances are no two of us are going to agree on exactly what unless we start comparing a lot of math. Even then, Frontier's exact intent will remain unclear without an explicit statement from them. Most players are ether blissfully unaware or flatly dumb. It's not like Frontier has any accessible, coherent, documentation on the matter either. Half the first hand info we half on how damage resistance is supposed to work are eight year old dev posts in an unsearchable forum archive riddled with broken links and neither the manual nor the in-game codex elaborate on the mechanisms.

Frontier needs to publicly clarify their positions, then actively enforce them.

 

[Rebel Yell]

btw sorry if I sound daft, what is "shadow ramming"?
(I don't do PVP so I guess there's just some nomenclature I've never come across)

When a ship ram another one using the edge of the shield and suffering little or no damage while inflicting a lot of damage to the other.

 

[Jmanis]

The game is not fully synchronous so can present divergent perspective
The EULA says a lot of stuff that if taken literally would result in half the player base being banned. It's boilerplate ass coverage so they aren't liable for any action or inaction, but have technicalities to fall back on when and if they find it useful to do so.

It's also difficult to prove intent. Some of the players in this thread may acknowledge that something is off about damage resistance stacking, but chances are no two of us are going to agree on exactly what unless we start comparing a lot of math. Even then, Frontier's exact intent will remain unclear without an explicit statement from them. Most players are ether blissfully unaware or flatly dumb. It's not like Frontier has any accessible, coherent, documentation on the matter either. Half the first hand info we half on how damage resistance is supposed to work are eight year old dev posts in an unsearchable forum archive riddled with broken links and neither the manual nor the in-game codex elaborate on the mechanisms.

Frontier needs to publicly clarify their positions, then actively enforce them.

Don't disagree with any of that. Just pointing out that failure to enforce doesn't mean that it's endorsed... and that something that's objectively against the rules is still against the rules. Whether FD can't, don't or won't enforce the rules is a separate issue to whether something is against them or not.

Being able to establish intent (and whether it was malicious or not) is very much a consideration of whether to punish or not. But the outcome of that has no bearing on whether rules were broken or not.

Public positions by FD are a bad idea though, as it locks them in to a particular course of action which definitely would be the wrong decision in many cases.

Side note: it surprises me when people are surprised by hearing they're breaking some sort of rules... you mention "half the player bar would be banned"... yes, that's true as much as in-game as it is in real life. "Decision to punish" is a very well established concept in that regard

 

[Morbad]

Being able to establish intent (and whether it was malicious or not) is very much a consideration of whether to punish or not. But the outcome of that has no bearing on whether rules were broken or not.

Cheating is defined by intent. Either they know it's a bug and leverage it to their advantage anyway, or they are just a victim of the bug. Without intent there can be no rule violation here. No clause in the EULA imposes any duty on the player to verify Frontier's hidden math.

Public positions by FD are a bad idea though, as it locks them in to a particular course of action which definitely would be the wrong decision in many cases.

Side note: it surprises me when people are surprised by hearing they're breaking some sort of rules... you mention "half the player bar would be banned"... yes, that's true as much as in-game as it is in real life. "Decision to punish" is a very well established concept in that regard

They might be bad for Frontier, as it would put a burden on them to do something when they've gone out of their way to promise next to nothing.

However arbitrary rules and arbitrary enforcement still cheapen the whole system. It leads to the unjust treatment of players and an incoherent game.

 

[Jmanis]

Cheating is defined by intent. Either they know it's a bug and leverage it to their advantage anyway, or they are just a victim of the bug. Without intent there can be no rule violation here. No clause in the EULA imposes any duty on the player to verify Frontier's hidden math.

Cheating is very much about intent. I didn't say cheating. I said breaking the rules. The two are different. Rule violations without intent happen all the time, again, both in game and in life.

If you break the rules, but whatever arbiter says "ah, it was an accident, you didn't mean to, that's fine", that doesn't mean you didn't break the rules. It means you broke them, and no punishment was applied.

It's not up to players to validate, sure. It's up to FD to enforce.

They might be bad for Frontier, as it would put a burden on them to do something when they've gone out of their way to promise next to nothing.

However arbitrary rules and arbitrary enforcement still cheapen the whole system. It leads to the unjust treatment of players and an incoherent game.

And specific rules around broad contexts where things can be very circumstantial around intent (which underpins the decision to punish) lead to more problems than less for players, where malicious players plead all cases for innocence by the definitions provided, players with no intent get punished, and indeed, players will even use those specific definitions against other players.

Kinda like the problem with the game's actual C&P system.

 

[Morbad]

Cheating is very much about intent. I didn't say cheating. I said breaking the rules. The two are different. Rule violations without intent happen all the time, again, both in game and in life.

They aren't different in this situation.

The prohibition against cheating is the rule, the only rule, that is broken by exploiting a ship equipment bug that provides advantages that were beyond the realm of developer intentions. There is nothing in the EULA to prohibit ignorantly benefiting from these bugs, nor could there rationally be such a rule.

And specific rules around broad contexts where things can be very circumstantial around intent (which underpins the decision to punish) lead to more problems than less for players, where malicious players plead all cases for innocence by the definitions provided, players with no intent get punished, and indeed, players will even use those specific definitions against other players.

Nothing about assessing intent needs to be circumstantial. If there is no clear evidence of intent, the assumption should be innocence. If someone is accused of exploiting this bug, Frontier should look at the evidence on hand and a lack of it would mean no punishment (though correcting the consequences of a bug is not a punishment). Most cases could never be proven; one would have to have admitted to knowing the effects were a bug in in-game comms, or their being a clear way to associate a game account with another venue. The best solution to bug exploits is to patch the bugs and, if practical, revert any damage caused by them.

Regardless, I'd still argue that specific rules, even those where intent needs to be factored in, are far better for a game than a de facto situation of no rules. Rules are what define a game and an unwillingness to demarcate and enforce boundaries is, IMO, worse than just about any other kind of neglect.

 

[Jmanis]

They aren't different in this situation.

The prohibition against cheating is the rule, the only rule, that is broken by exploiting a ship equipment bug that provides advantages that were beyond the realm of developer intentions. There is nothing in the EULA to prohibit ignorantly benefiting from these bugs, nor could there rationally be such a rule.

It says you can't use cheats. It says nothing about intent, ignorance or anything. That's literally how rules work... they exist and can be broken regardless of your knowledge of them.

Yes, i distinguish between "using cheats" and cheating here... the latter being deliberate, the former not necessarily.

Nothing about assessing intent needs to be circumstantial.

Didn't say intent needed to be circumstantial. I referred to specific rules around broad contexts where intent can be circumstantial.

If there is no clear evidence of intent, the assumption should be innocence.

Are you conflating establishing innocence and guilt with an objective breach of rules? That's probably where things are going wrong.

If someone is accused of exploiting this bug, Frontier should look at the evidence on hand and a lack of it would mean no punishment (though correcting the consequences of a bug is not a punishment).

Agreed

Most cases could never be proven; one would have to have admitted to knowing the effects were a bug in in-game comms, or their being a clear way to associate a game account with another venue.

Nothing needs to be proven for a rule to be broken.

The best solution to bug exploits is to patch the bugs and, if practical, revert any damage caused by them.

Absolutely. FD is demonstrably bad at this.

Regardless, I'd still argue that specific rules, even those where intent needs to be factored in, are far better for a game than a de facto situation of no rules. Rules are what define a game and an unwillingness to demarcate and enforce boundaries is, IMO, worse than just about any other kind of neglect.

I disagree. Strict and specific rules impose accountability from players, even when such enforcement would be against the spirit of the game. It's better to maintain flexibility... rules can make things fun, except when they don't.

 

[Morbad]

It says you can't use cheats. It says nothing about intent, ignorance or anything. That's literally how rules work... they exist and can be broken regardless of your knowledge of them.

Cheating is intentional, perforce. Someone who stumbles upon an effect that the developers haven't intended isn't cheating unless they knowingly leverage it to their advantage. That's what the word means.

You can no more cheat via bug exploit unintentionally than you can accidentally murder someone. You can accidentally kill someone, but murder implies intent and without that intent it's some other form of homicide.

Yes, i distinguish between "using cheats" and cheating here... the latter being deliberate, the former not necessarily.

A bug is never a cheat without the knowledge that it's a bug and the willingness to abuse it.

CMDR Jimbob the UncleDaddy with his 87% thermal resistance Anaconda, who has no idea he's not supposed to be able to reach those values because he's never read a bunch of archived forum posts from four years before he started playing the game, is not a cheater, nor guilty of using cheats, just because he's using a ship with resistance values some of believe to be unintentionally high. At most, he's just a naive victim of a stupid system.

Nothing needs to be proven for a rule to be broken.

It needs to be demonstrated to have happened to justify punitive action. The degree of proof required is subjective, but presuming that a rule has been broken without proof does not serve to deter rule breaking or correct any damage done by it.

I disagree. Strict and specific rules impose accountability from players, even when such enforcement would be against the spirit of the game. It's better to maintain flexibility... rules can make things fun, except when they don't.

A multiplayer game needs a consistent set of rules, otherwise you have some players playing by a better set of rules than others. I never find this conducive to an enjoyable gaming experience. Arbitrary enforcement of rules, vague rules, and/or a lack of transparency about the rules, usually results in an experience that is distinctly against the spirit of the game.

 

[Jmanis]

Cheating is intentional, perforce. Someone who stumbles upon an effect that the developers haven't intended isn't cheating unless they knowingly leverage it to their advantage. That's what the word means.

I don't see any disagreement here.

The Konami Code is a cheat.
Deliberate use of the Konami Code is cheating.
Accidental use is still use of a cheat, but not cheating.

FD rules against use of cheats, not against cheating.

You can no more cheat via bug exploit unintentionally than you can accidentally murder someone. You can accidentally kill someone, but murder implies intent and without that intent it's some other form of homicide.

That goes down paths i want to avoid due to both effort and thematics. Context matters... and i don't want to have to start covering off intentional variances, criminal negligence and all sorts of complexities which aren't relevant.

Edit: though i would say, what you instead seem to be implying so far is that you can't have committed murder if you weren't aware murder was against the law.

A bug is never a cheat without the knowledge that it's a bug and the willingness to abuse it.

Of course it is. Cheats are a method or technique which, sometimes, uses a bug, and provides an advantage. Intent has nothing to do with it.

As i said, the Konami Code is a cheat, whether you know it or not.

CMDR Jimbob the UncleDaddy with his 87% thermal resistance Anaconda, who has no idea he's not supposed to be able to reach those values because he's never read a bunch of archived forum posts from four years before he started playing the game, is not a cheater,

Agreed

nor guilty of using cheats,

disagreed, though I'd remove words like "guilty" here, as they imply wrongdoing using that term.

Again, you're conflating findings of innocence and guilt with simple "things that happened".

just because he's using a ship with resistance values some of believe to be unintentionally high. At most, he's just a naive victim of a stupid system.

Victim is also a loaded term here, but anyway... i disagree with the bit about "some believe to be unintentionally high". That's not it.

The issue here is a negative effect is not being applied as advertised. It also affords advantage compared to other comparable fits because of that That pushes it into being a cheat.

It needs to be demonstrated to have happened to justify punitive action. The degree of proof required is subjective, but presuming that a rule has been broken without proof does not serve to deter rule breaking or correct any damage done by it.

And again, you need to separate the decision to punish from the act that occurred. People break rules all the time, it's just a fact. The decision to punish is a whole separate consideration.

Breaking a law does not make you a criminal. That requires a finding of guilt. But that doesn't mean a law wasn't broken.

Decision to punish[1] is very much a thing. It feels like you don't have a solid grasp of the concept or it's effect on these situations. Can elaborate more if you like?

A multiplayer game needs a consistent set of rules, otherwise you have some players playing by a better set of rules than others. I never find this conducive to an enjoyable gaming experience. Arbitrary enforcement of rules, vague rules, and/or a lack of transparency about the rules, usually results in an experience that is distinctly against the spirit of the game.

Rules seem pretty consistent to me.
In this instance, this is a cheat.

Whether or not FD decide to punish someone using it ultimately depends on how much they care, which is weighed against impact on the game (specifically, on others, since the EULA places and effort required to identify an individual.

Use it unintentionally for your favourite massacre stacking build? Prob never going to get an eyebrow raised. Use it unintentionally in a tourney? Your peers might get upset but FD prob expect self regulation there. Used unintentionally in a context for a more dramatic effect? Probably going to get you nabbed with a warning, something more severe if you then actively continue it.

But again, that's decision to punish at work there.

 

[Northpin]

A bug is never a cheat without the knowledge that it's a bug and the willingness to abuse it.

CMDR Jimbob the UncleDaddy with his 87% thermal resistance Anaconda, who has no idea he's not supposed to be able to reach those values because he's never read a bunch of archived forum posts from four years before he started playing the game, is not a cheater, nor guilty of using cheats, just because he's using a ship with resistance values some of believe to be unintentionally high. At most, he's just a naive victim of a stupid system.

I sort of disagree with that.
Playing stupid and/or not assuming any responsibility for your own actions is not an excuse.

Noticing that adding a module that is supposed to decrease resists, instead it increases those resists - it is a very obvious bug that should raise a red flag.
Same for Rockforth fertilizer - buying it for 1000cr and selling it for 1100cr at the very same station, is an obvious bug and should raise a red flag.
And then common sense should kick in and prevent the user to exploit that bug.

I'm mentioning the Rockforth fertilizer specifically because there were players that made the same excuse - it was in game and so i used it, how should i know it was a bug exploit? and they did that and made billions even tho other voices on the forums raised concerns about exploiting that bug
And guess what, the billions they made were deducted from them days later when FD made it clear it was a punishable bug abuse
I was really happy with FDev stance at the time.

 

[Markov Chaney]

Whether or not FD decide to punish someone using it ultimately depends on how much they care, which is weighed against impact on the game (specifically, on others, since the EULA places and effort required to identify an individual.

Use it unintentionally for your favourite massacre stacking build? Prob never going to get an eyebrow raised. Use it unintentionally in a tourney? Your peers might get upset but FD prob expect self regulation there. Used unintentionally in a context for a more dramatic effect? Probably going to get you nabbed with a warning, something more severe if you then actively continue it.

This para is the best summary out of you two talking past each other - but note these examples include making a judgement given the facts which is the opposite of hyperliteral "rules is rules." You both seem to be arguing for both positions.

Rules which explicitly say "this is banned" are easy to deal with and a list of them is useful to save everybody's time but it does NOT preclude the existence of broader regulations that require interpretation. Both things can be true, they do not exclude one another.

But again, that's decision to punish at work there.

Yeah - so the gap here is the rule against "unsporting behaviour" and a definition that's equivalent to "unsporting behaviour is what the race stewards say it is."

Does FDev have that? No idea, I haven't conducted a close read of the EULA because I, much like hundreds of thousands of other people, do not consider it likely I am going to be in a witness box over it at any point.

If you want live stewarding from FDev you'll need to pay for it. Or join a group fully invested in player enforcement, such as Moebius. Arguing over the interpretation of something that wasn't even thought through as a possible text for a sporting code is absolutely pointless.

 

[Factabulous]

Arguing over the interpretation of something that wasn't even thought through as a possible text for a sporting code is absolutely pointless.

Correct. Then again - forum PvP = best PvP

 

[Morbad]

Found one of the bug report threads on this topic: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/bug-in-armour-resistance-calculation.422446/
That thread was made from merging mutliple threads dating back to at least 2.3.

And for reference, how hull resistance is supposed to be calculated (couldn't find the original dev post from 2015, but Frentox has the jist of it): https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ics-hardness-piercing-etc.224474/post-4456105

The issue seems to be with the diminishing return calculation and how it's implemented, but I haven't looked up what Coriolis' math actually is for this.

FD rules against use of cheats, not against cheating.

No dichotomy here. A bug is neither a cheat nor cheating unless knowingly exploited to one's advantage.

That goes down paths i want to avoid due to both effort and thematics. Context matters... and i don't want to have to start covering off intentional variances, criminal negligence and all sorts of complexities which aren't relevant.

Edit: though i would say, what you instead seem to be implying so far is that you can't have committed murder if you weren't aware murder was against the law.

The context is the intent, or lack thereof.

I never implied that one cannot unwittingly commit a crime or break a rule. I'm stating that some rules prohibit behaviors that are defined by intentions and that cheat and it's variants are prime examples of this.

That murder analogy doesn't track. Murder is illegal in most places no matter what one knows of the law, but barring some other legal technicality, an accidental homicide is not murder because murder normally requires intent to kill. Likewise, if someone was somehow unaware that cheating was against the rules, cheating would still be against the rules. However, being unaware that the effects in play are the result of a bug precludes cheating via bug exploit, because there is no intent to use that bug to obtain an unfair advantage.

Of course it is. Cheats are a method or technique which, sometimes, uses a bug, and provides an advantage. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Plug "cheat definition' into your favorite search engine. Intent is a key part of most of those definitions of the English word and nothing about Frontier's use makes me think they were referring to something else.

Breaking a law does not make you a criminal.

Breaking a law that defines a crime absolutely makes one a criminal under that law, even if the violator does not acknowledge the law and is never caught violating it

In this instance, this is a cheat.

If you or I do it, knowing what we know, sure.

If someone just makes a stack of HRPs and slaps them on a ship without noticing that the resistance values have rolled over at some point, or shrugs off the nonsensical figures (which start at the first HRP in some setups) as some sort of UI bug divorced from actual resistance values...that's not a cheat or any kind of prohibited behavior in this game, as far as I can figure.

If the rule was, "you cannot put more than n HRPs of the same type on a ship", or "use of HRPs in conjunction with thermal resistant reflective bulkheads is prohibiited", then one could accidentally violate such a rule. But the rule isn't against any specific behavior, it's against any behavior with a certain intent behind it. It's against cheating, or the use of cheats, or however one wants to frame it, and the desire to secure an advantage one knows one is not supposed to have is implict in that.

Noticing that adding a module that is supposed to decrease resists, instead it increases those resists - it is a very obvious bug that should raise a red flag.

The way the armor system in the game is supposed to work is insanity. Despite a handful of real world exceptions the idea that one can add hull reinforcement packages with the potential to reduce effective armor, rather than simply being less beneficial, is exceptionally counterintuitive. I find it entirely believable that someone could build one of these vessels without identifying the system as bugged.

And then common sense should kick in and prevent the user to exploit that bug.

Common sense is one of the most subjective things there is. There are plenty of things I that I think should raise obvious red flags that many don't seem to acknowledge or comprehend, or that people are so used to they can't see it from any other perspective. Everything from Wing missions, to the masses of fighter hangars, to blocking either has nonsensical rules or damaging implications that seem absurd to me that most just gloss over.

I think there should be a general rule that if something doesn't make sense in the context of the game (and that context should be made very clear through documentation), it's probably a bug, and that taking advantage of it should be prohibited. Unfortunately the game is an inconsistent, largely undocumented, mess, and my personal standards would not be acceptable for most others.

I'm mentioning the Rockforth fertilizer specifically because there were players that made the same excuse - it was in game and so i used it, how should i know it was a bug exploit? and they did that and made billions even tho other voices on the forums raised concerns about exploiting that bug

I agree that being able to abuse something certainly isn't a much of an excuse for abusing something.

And guess what, the billions they made were deducted from them days later when FD made it clear it was a punishable bug abuse
I was really happy with FDev stance at the time.

This, like most of Frontier's prior interventios were simply corrections, not punishments. Actual punitive measures might deter future abuse...corections can only inform the ignorant that something is considered less than acceptable...the abusers already new this, but are no worse off than before. Frontier doesn't do either frequently or consistently enough to make their position clear.

If you want live stewarding from FDev you'll need to pay for it. Or join a group fully invested in player enforcement, such as Moebius. Arguing over the interpretation of something that wasn't even thought through as a possible text for a sporting code is absolutely pointless.

If we want stewarding from FDev we're out of luck and they already have our money.

Players also have negligible ability to enforce anything. CMDRs can be removed from a private group, but the main potential venue for interaction (including the negative effects of cheating) trancends modes.

 

[Jmanis]

This para is the best summary out of you two talking past each other - but note these examples include making a judgement given the facts which is the opposite of hyperliteral "rules is rules." You both seem to be arguing for both positions.

I'd highlight that i would argue all three examples are against the rules (since they're all examples of the same exploit). Full stop.

The "judgement given the facts" as you put it comes in on what I'm saying all the time here; the decision to punish. In the real world it's called decision to prosecute/charge/ insert your relevant legal construct here.

That's because you're 100% right...

...so the gap here is the rule against "unsporting behaviour" and a definition that's equivalent to "unsporting behaviour is what the race stewards say it is."

Does FDev have that? No idea...

i haven't read it cover to cover, only to pick relevant parts when people. FD does have a rough equivalent in there though, with one extra.

• here's a (not limited) set of rules
• FD decide when to enforce those rules
• absence of enforcement by FD doesn't mean something isn't against the rules.

It's very broad... mostly because EULAs aren't legal instruments, so prortionality isn't a consideration, which is why most have no legal basis. The fact most people will inadvertently find themselves in breach is one reason.

But game shops do it broad like this because it's impossible to predict what people might do, and then plead, such as in @Northpin 's example, any way which might wrangle them out according to the TOS/EULA/whatever.

So instead, they give relatable examples peppered through a document that doesn't say much more than "don't be dumb. We decide what being dumb is. If you're too dumb to know what being dumb is... here's some examples".

It's perfectly workable and, imo, ideal for games. It just means most people will be in breach of the rules one way or another... but that's fine, since FD enforcement is discretionary.

For some reason, this idea gets people's nose out of joint. Maybe it's a misconceived sense of self that people think they're implacably good and never break the rules... or the idea that breaking rules irrevocably casts someone in a negative light? Dunno...

Plug "cheat definition' into your favorite search engine. Intent is a key part of most of those definitions of the English word and nothing about Frontier's use makes me think they were referring to something else.

I have. I can't find any English definition that calls out intent as anything to do with the definition of a cheat (noun). The verb has plenty of intent, but it's not the word in using. The closest i can find is the definition of a (person) who is a cheat, one who cheats... which is one of many covered by the same source that also includes my use.

So what next? I cite a reference to the definition, you claim its not authoritative for whatever reason... this all gets dead-ended if we're not going to acknowledge the meaning of words.

 

[Screemonster]

The problem is how the game handles supposedly diminishing returns and that there is no subtraction done any where in the actual resistance calculations, it's all multiplication.

And they seem to do it iteratively for every module added, rather than calculating all the multipliers then applying the diminishing returns at the end. If they did the softcap last in the calculation then Funny Hull wouldn't work.

That said, it's really only useful for station ganking since station defences are thermal reverb lasers. It's less useful than more conventional builds against absolute damage (ie. most meta pvp builds with plasma) and since most funny hull builds are shieldless their modules are extremely vulnerable to missiles.