Help us helping you

That’s not an exploit. That is just using the game options to be more effective.

Is using strongbox farming (or whichever is more efficient this league) an exploit because it gives you more divs/hour than other mechanics?
Is using a stronger build an exploit for the same reason?

No, those are balance issues caused by dev decisions.
Not even snapshotting was an exploit. It was just something the devs wish wasn’t there but hadn’t found a way to do it differently yet.

An exploit, like I said, is a “crime”. It’s something that will get you banned.
Everything else is just optimizing your gameplay.

But this is not using the mechanic as normal. You’re going out of your way to use the mechanic in a way it wasn’t designed to be played. That’s why it’s an exploit. You’re not playing the game like everyone else is. You’re intentionally disrupting the normal flow of the game to benefit from it.

You might call it an oversight, but if the devs don’t want the mechanic to be played that way, then it’s a bug.
And if the devs don’t mind you doing that, then it’s not an exploit, it’s a strategy.

Why would a double ID show up? There was no duping involved. The items were always rolled fresh.
The only issue was that a chest that was supposed to have already been opened is now closed and it will dump a new batch of items.

But for that you’d need to be logging “chests opened” as a metric. Which, before this issue came up, wasn’t something you’d reasonably be logging, since it would just be taking space uselessly.

Not only that, simply chests opened wouldn’t give you any indication that anything was wrong. You’d have a slight deviation, but it wouldn’t be that noticeable (you do have to go through 2 loading screens).
The issue was that you were opening the same chest over and over. And since tomb chests give you the echo reward, you were getting multiple echo rewards that way.

So the number of chests opened might go up a bit but not in an alarming way, the items were all different, so no dupes, what you had was an exploited target farming (for example, having more idol drops than other types if you were on an idol echo).

The problem with this issue is that individually, no metric would be triggered. It was just the sum of the actions that made it an exploit.
Not a particularly game breaking exploit, but an exploit nonetheless.

Why would you assume they don’t have them? I find it very unlikely they don’t. Might not cover all cases (which isn’t easy to do anyway) but they almost certainly have tools to inform them of outlier issues.

An exploit is the use of a game’s bug, glitch or unintended mechanic to gain an unfair advantage over other players or the game itself.

You’re just factually wrong there. The definition is separate from ‘bug’ for a reason.

Much like a glitch and a bug are also not the same. One is repeatable, the other is not.
A prime example for a glitch is for example the external temperature of the environment in some old N64 games as their cartridges and circuit boards were beyond shit in quality. This could lead to a unrepeatable error which has a physical reason and not a software based one.

A exploit can be in both of those categories, caused by a bug or a glitch, but it can also happen through unintended mechanics. Hence oversights. Neither a bug (faulty code).

A exploit can be a intended mechanic but used in a unintended way as well. If it provides a ridiculously visible clear-cut upside which is otherwise nowhere to be seen in the game it is within reason to see it as a exploit.
If it’s basically thrown at you it’s fixed as quickly as possible. If it’s something you have to go out of your way to do a bit and repeatable then it is a banable offence in most games.

Not going to get into the limitations as there are none, what is a exploit is defined by the devs, not by us as users.

Not bugged.
Intended mechanic.
Still not bugged.
Outcome is unintended.

Exploit.
You’re welcome :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m speaking generally about duping here.
Not about the specific case.

With foresight you realize it’s not useless, hence it’s a viable option from the first second.
As many safety measures as possible, always. You push them to the limit until it risks deprecating performance. Well… and how much time you had to do it at least.

Because I’m lenient.

Otherwise I would’ve to see them as utterly incompetent skill-wise. Great ideas without the proper skills to back em up. Like a architect which tries to build a house on their own and hence fucking all the stuff up despite the plan being there.

It doesn’t work as intended. It’s a bug. When you change it, it’s a bugfix. It doesn’t matter if the flaw was at the design phase or at the coding phase, it’s still a bug.
You want feature X to behave in a certain way. If it doesn’t behave in that way or if it behaves in different ways, then it’s a bug.

As above. Unintended is a bug.

If the premise is “It has to be fixed” then it’s always a bug.

A bug is code related.
Exploits can be oversight.

You’re just simply wrong. Read up on it, look at the definitions, don’t stop at a single one fitting your premise but go along to read 3-4 and you’ll come to a overall consensus.

I work at a software company. When we make a new feature and we forget about some other interaction, the fix is a bug fix.
As I said, if the premise is “It’s not working as we wanted it to, it has to be fixed”, then it’s a bug.

It doesn’t matter if the oversight was at the design phase. It doesn’t work as it should. It’s a bug.

The origin on the word bug was quite literally a bug in the transistors. It had nothing to do with coding. It only had to do with “This isn’t working as it should”. That’s what a bug is.

I really don’t care what it’s called in your company individually.
Especially since you’re not working in a game-dev studio, which hence while similar is not quite the same sector in the first place.

Also if something is for example missing then it’s simply ‘we forgot shit’ and not a ‘bug’.

Also the modern meaning related to software isn’t insects inside your hardware anymore, kinda far away from what it’s depicting nowadays.

There are definitions for exploit and bug and anyone can see it. there is even less reason to argue about this then about opposing oppinions while everyone gets the other sides point of view but can’t agree to disagree :smiley: .

but maybe someone can enlighten us on the stance of EHG on this matter? We had a seson where skills that overperformed stood untouched while bugs have been fixed. @DJSamhein says overperfermoance is a bug because it was exploited I and @Kulze see things different. What is the EHG stance on the matter? I’m curious right now :smiley: .

1 Like

That’s not how the term “exploit” is used in English. You don’t exploit a buff to a thing, you exploit bugs & vulnerabilities.

Not in English you don’t. The term exploit has negative connotations so shouldn’t be used when referring to use of functional things or intended functionality. I don’t “exploit” Excel by using functions & formulae to do my job.

Yes, anyone playing a Primalist is clearly morally bankrupt.

CT was never removed.

1 Like

So after googeling a bit and @Llama8 post… I’m in a bit of a pickle. First of all @DJSamhein is right about Exploits but there is a bit more to it but that’s not intresting for this topic. So I’m wrong and I wonder why.

Some german speakers arround? I think this is a bit of a language thing ^^. Exploiting translated to german is “ausnutzen”. So we make use of something in a bad way like abusing op classes to stomp underpowered classes. Everyone I played with in the german speaking spectrum calls using OP stuff or stuff that is obviously OP and gives 10X what it should “exploiting” a mechanic :D. So the Exploit… the weakness in a sturcture… a first day weekness and so on and so forth isn’t what I at least ment. A better term to use would be taking advantage of I guess but in a worse way or a shady way.

Yeah but if there was a Excel formulae that would do your job for you and you would use it the german speaking spehre I’m in would call this exploiting and do their job regulary.

Man My english got far to bad to deliver this understandably I guess :smiley: .

2 Likes

That is irrelevant. The term bug doesn’t change whether you’re working on calculator, a site or a game.

Let’s say your code was working perfectly and then Nvidia (or Windows or Chrome) launches a new feature and now your app is crashing left and right. You have to fix it. It’s a bug. It’s not a new feature.

If you forgot shit, it’s a bug. The only distinction is in who to blame, the designers or the programmers.
As described on wiki:
“A software bug is a design defect (bug) in computer software.”

It’s irrelevant if the design defect was made in the feature design step or in the implementation step. It’s still a bug.

Even in the broader sense of an engineering bug it’s still the same thing:
“In engineering, a bug is a design defect in an engineered system—such as software, computer hardware, electronics, circuitry or machinery—that causes an undesired result.”
And I’ll point out the key phrase there “causes an undesired result”.

Yes, maybe it’s because both you and Kulze are german speakers and the term has a different meaning for you. In English it has the meaning of taking advantage of a vulnerability.
Even in real world examples, it has the negative connotation that what you are doing is legally and/or morally wrong.

So, in English, using an unbalanced OP class isn’t an exploit. Neither is using a mechanic that is stronger. Because those are simply results of how the devs are balancing the game. There isn’t anything legally (in terms of the game ToS) or morally wrong in that.

For a clearer example, using adventure mode in D3 wasn’t an exploit just because it was much more efficient than using the campaign. That was just optimizing your strategy.

For it to be an exploit you have to be using something in a way it wasn’t intended to be used (bug). It’s something that is fully expected to be fixed and you’re abusing it before it does.

1 Like

Well, getting tired of the conversation about Exploits, so let’s end it right away as the Wiki seems to hold loads of weight for you, right?

Game mechanics
Taking advantage of the systems that make up the gameplay. A game mechanics exploit is not a bug: it is a case in which a system is working as designed, but not as intended. An example is the “wavedash” in Super Smash Bros. Melee, in which the momentum gained from using a directional aerial dodge could be retained on landing; with proper timing this allows characters to use a stationary attack while sliding across the ground or reposition themselves in a snappy, precise way.

Here ya go!
Have fun :slight_smile:

1 Like

Funny how you cherry pick a small part of it to “prove” your argument while ignoring all the other parts that disprove it.
Namely:

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitch, in a way that gives a substantial unfair advantage to players using it

Notice how it says using a bug or glitch and that it provides “an unfair advantage”.

Also:

Exploiting is considered cheating by most in the gaming community and gaming industry, due to the unfair advantage usually gained by the exploiter.

As for your quoted example, also note the use of “a system is working as designed, but not as intended.”. Which is contemplated in the bug definition as being a bug, as quoted on the previous post.
Just because whoever edited that part of the page didn’t bother checking what a bug was doesn’t mean it’s not a bug.

Game system works in a way that’s not intended. It’s a bug. It’s something that should be fixed (although some companies sometimes don’t fix them and just say they’re features, but that’s another discussion).

1 Like

BTW do you remember the Mid-Cycle Build Balance Survey stuff from back in the day? When they said they want to fix bugs but right now we learned everything that isn’t working as intended or waht is overpowered or underpowered is a bug? I better not look into that survey again or the wording that was used because right now I’m sure a lot of people knew as little/much as I did when it came to bugs including EHG Devs.

Must have been hell for you given how fiercly you fight to good fight to edjucate people on the topic :slight_smile: .

1 Like

I will just say that the Wiki entry actually is not fully right. But the other way around.

For example the cambridge definition is overly inclusive, which is where the wiki-entrance definition is coming from, stating that a ‘bug’ is solely any unintended behavior.

Hence that would mean anything which is even remotely unintended is inherently a bug.

The common notion as to how - nigh universally nowadays I would even argue - a ‘bug’ is handled is by stating it as: ‘An error in the code that causes the program to function incorrectly’.

This is the modern description, not the cambridge or yours.

Which hence can be differentiated from a ‘unintended mechanic’ which is: ‘A functional outcome that developers did not anticipate, often created by combining existing systems in a novel way’.

Otherwise any unintended novel usage of any program would inherently be ‘a bug’. And you should know yourself how absolutely silly it is to follow this notion.
Just imagine the following:
Someone creates a program for editing photos (hence Adope Photoshop for example, the original intended usage) and now someone uses this in a novel way to not edit a Photo but create a picture from scratch instead, like it’s done by many artists nowadays.
So by definition this would mean that being able to do that is inherently a bug. Why? Because it is not intended.

As the notion is for any ‘bug’ to be eradicated though (As a bug is a mistake, right?), would this mean that universally any unintended behavior is to be eradicated? Hence causing a inability for people to create pictures from scratch with Photoshop for example?

Yes, definitions are important, but if they haven’t been updated for friggin decades in even the damn cambridge dictionary then obviously it’ll lead to faulty outcomes. Hence that’s why new terms formed to adjust the faulty situations in a try to remedy them. You just missed the ride there entirely, as did your company.

Also this - once again - is just a mess of a discussion which is utterly worthless and senseless to boot, which is why this is the last post related to the topic there from my side.

1 Like

From what publication is this discription and who ruled it so? I’m pretty sure you just don’t make stuff up so a source would be nice… or ten :smiley: .

1 Like

The ‘IEEE’ (Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Teminology) describes it. You can look the terminology up there.

Interchange ‘defect’ with ‘bug’ simply, that’s the core premise of the description basis for what it is.

The confusion comes from the situation of direct unintended behavior (we did as expected but the outcome is unexpected and not the fault of code) which is a bug. Versus incorrect usage of users outside the scope of the intentions, which is not declared a bug hence.

Yeah and I always thought the following are no bugs but depending on the defintion they are.