Curse

dancing gnome · May 30, 2010, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

exploits are very common, and many are considered harmless. one of the most common exploits are ai exploits because they are completely dumb that its so easy to exploit them. for example, in double dragon games there are various wall exploits, where the enemy will get 'stuck' and you can freely hit them. many of these things overtime generally get accepted as normal. in gw, one that i can think of off-hand is the "book trick" that was used in fow and sf that caused ai to only attack the holder of the book. the difference here, is that while the community accepted it as normal, anet said no and nerfed it.

ai is dumb amirite?

there are tons of exploits in gw and in all games. pvp has a ton too: the obstructed glitch, where standing on the edge of bridge grants you invulnerability against projectile attacks. the most common one that gets used nearly every single time in ha is the longbow to build up adren before triggering the timer.

exploits will always be a part of a game as long as there are bugs/design flaws. just be glad games like gw gets constant maintenance updates and bug fixes.

To my knowledge the book trick was only nerfed because it made ritualists dead in the water. Because of item spells they would have always been targeted and killed thus making item spells incredibly undesirable in the game.

I don't believe it had anything to do with someone deciding the book/cog trick should be removed.

Gill Halendt · May 30, 2010, 04:11 PM // 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyMoto

Stop fooling yourself. Speedbooking is abusing functionality in the code which allows the user to bypass part of the game (an exploit).

Never said it wasn't an abuse. That's what it is.

It's just, technically, NOT an exploit, as to have an exploit you have to have a bug to exploit by definition, and, sorry, here is none.

This is fact: we know by the developer themselves that it was a precise - and as I said before, IMO shortsighted, as it was made way before the introduction of flaggable heroes - design choice: there was a post on Lindsey's wiki about HFFF explaining it, can't find it anymore tough. The game simply behaves as it should so you're really not exploiting anything, you're just abusing an oversight, while the EULA explicitly is about exploits.

Quote:

An exploit (from the same word in the French language, meaning "achievement", or "accomplishment") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that take advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerised).

The term "exploit" has become rather derogatory today - Wikipedia also has a word about "exploits in gaming" - , but THIS is the actual (and official) meaning of the term, as used in the EULA: exploits are bannable because they involve the exploitation of bugs.

A bug, in turn, is:

Quote:

A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways.

Bugs are errors in the code, and they can be either coding bugs or logic bugs (see my previous post). Weak solutions in a program (like the one allowing Speedbooks to work) DON'T qualify as bugs. The game just behaves as intended. The mere fact that the intended way is indeed abusable doesn't make it a bug.

So, without a bug, I wouldn't expect a ban, but rather, a fix to the abusable game mechanic. It happened before, it will probably happen again in the future.

If we take abused game mechanics as a reason for bans, well, pretty much everyone is bannable today: there's really no difference between abusing the technical restrictions of the engine while speedbooking and, say, abusing the limitations of the artificial intelligence when farming.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love this to be fixed if the Developers feel like fixing it. I just don't think there's a margin for suspensions, it would be simply ridicolous.

snaek · May 30, 2010, 04:24 PM // 16:24

^anet's meaning is not definitive in anything other than what justifies a ban. it still doesn't change the fact that it is by definition an exploit. even so....

Quote:

A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways.

do you not understand the meaning of flaw? yea, that very thing that allows the exploit to work.

GoF · May 30, 2010, 04:29 PM // 16:29

Quote:

An exploit (from the same word in the French language, meaning "achievement", or "accomplishment") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that take advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerised).

I'd say that the enemies not spawning is a vulnerability of the game.

Gill Halendt · May 30, 2010, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

do you not understand the meaning of flaw? yea, that very thing that allows the exploit to work.

There's no "flaw" in the code here. Actually, the progressive spawns most likely needed additional coding, while without this feature they could simple call for the global spawn of the map once.

All I see is a debatable choice of the developers. They can rectify it whenever they please, but no one is exploiting a bug here.

Foes not being programmed to loose aggro against invincible Sins is a bug as well then: they forgot to implement such a mechanic and people abused it.

/banuserbase ?

snaek · May 30, 2010, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

There's no "flaw" in the code here. Actually, the progressive spawns most likely needed additional coding, while without this feature they could simple call for the global spawn of the map once.

All I see is a debatable choice of the developers. They can rectify it whenever they please, but no one is exploiting a bug here.

Foes not being programmed to loose aggro against invincible Sins is a bug as well then: they forgot to implement such a mechanic and people abused it.

/banuserbase ?

first of all, i don't think its an bannable offense, as i stated numerous times earlier, but that doesn't change the fact that by definition it is an exploit.

you seem to think that exploits only work one way: taking advantage of errors in the code; however, it can also work by taking advantage of holes in the code.

Trub · May 30, 2010, 04:40 PM // 16:40

Quote:

Speedbooking- is it an Exploit?

= YES.

Will you be banned for it?= I personaly don't know.

It would be best if you take the advice of some of these guru'ers, and post the question to Regina on her wiki page.

Chris616263 · May 30, 2010, 04:41 PM // 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by majoho

Why can't people just play the game like it's supposed to then there's nothing to worry about.

Uh, hello, have you met the human race lately?

We're greedy, lazy, scum.

Gill Halendt · May 30, 2010, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

you seem to think that exploits only work one way: taking advantage of broken code; however, it can also work by taking advantage of holes in the code.

There's no "hole in the code" here. It's an intended feature. There's likely even overabundant code for this intended - and today probably surpassed - feature to work.

Sure, it is also an abusable feature. So, it qualifies as an abuse, but not as an exploit in my engineer and programmer books -> not a bannable offense for me either, but just because of this, not because Anet is being benevolent toward abusers.

snaek · May 30, 2010, 04:49 PM // 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

There's no "hole in the code" here. It's an intended feature. There's likely even overabundant code for this intended - and today probably surpassed - feature to work.

Sure, it is also an abusable feature. So, it qualifies as an abuse, but not as an exploit in my engineer and programmer books -> not a bannable offense for me either, but just because of this, not because Anet is being benevolent toward abusers.

no, its not. it was a feature intended to be used for other purposes. people found out they can use this future in a non-intended way to give them an advantage; hence, being an exploit.

Gill Halendt · May 30, 2010, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

no, its not. it was a feature intended to be used for other purposes.

Hence, LITERALLY, an AB-USE.

You know, the etymological meaning of the term "ab-use" is exactly that: misuse or change the inherent purpose or function of something.

No programmer would call this an exploit. Because it isn't.

snaek · May 30, 2010, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Hence, LITERALLY, an AB-USE.

You know, the etymological meaning of the term "ab-use" is exactly that: misuse or change the inherent purpose or function of something.

No programmer would call this an exploit. Because it isn't.

arguing semantics are we?

multiple sources state this is an exploit, including the official gw wiki.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Exploit

An exploit is an official term referring to players utilizing a bug in the game to unfairly benefit their characters or account. An exploit can be a weakness in a difficult mission or quest that allows players to finish it easily and gain the rewards without much effort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bug

A bug is an error (in performance) or a flaw (in design) in a game which prevents it from working as intended.

Gill Halendt · May 30, 2010, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

arguing semantics are we?

Exactly.

It's what you have to do when dealing with written Rules of Conducts using specific, technical terms to describe situations.

When they refer to "exploits" in the EULA, they're surely not referring to the derogatory meaning of the term as used by players themselves. "Bug exploitation" has a precise meaning and, sorry, this is not "taking advantage of a unintended design flaw".

An example of "bug exploitation" (the actual bannable offense) is the glitch that allowed the item duplication: there was something wrong in the executable code that made it possible (a bug, by definition), either a logic error or simply a syntax error, people discovered it, exploited it, and got banned.

We have no error in the code here. "A design flaw" isn't a bug: it's just that, a design misconception, whatever the official wiki says. You don't fix design flaws with debug (the act of removing bugs) but with some redesign. Go figure: HFFF relied on this "design flaw" and the quests needed to accomplish HFFF were redesigned, not debugged, for a reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

Multiple sources state this is an exploit, including the official gw wiki.

Articles written by players, using these terms in a derogatory way. Articles lacking any relevant - and official - source. They have some informative purpose, but that's it.

Official term? Really?

When and where it's been declared officially?

Then again, if THIS is an exploit, 99% of the farming is an exploit as well and, by reading the EULA, we should all be banned RIGHT NOW for exploiting the flawed artificial intelligence.

EDIT - Oh, by the way:

Quote:

Abuse of Game Mechanics

The distinction between exploiting bugs and abusing game mechanics is a fine one. While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake, the abuse of game mechanics is the act of taking advantage of the limitations of the World of Warcraft game systems. Since the line between the sanctioned use and the abuse of game mechanics is sometimes unclear, we prefer to educate players before taking any action against the account being used.

Quoted from some well-written support page (WoW). The content in it is pretty much universal tough.

cormac ap dunn · May 30, 2010, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Think i mentioned this before but Sliver Armor targeting one creature at a time is a bug...anyone who used the skill even once to kill a single foe on purpose was therefore using an exploit. Would Anet ever ban everyone who ever did that? Nope, simply put bug, or poor game mechanics, Hero/Hench not spawning enemies has been and will likely remain a part of the game.

The proof is still in the last "big thing" to use this. "Ghost Running", when they changed Unyielding Aura to rez from an entire map away. When this creative little use for the heroes not spawning enemies was fixed, UA was changed, not the hero triggers. So this feature will likely always remain, either by choice or by game design.

snaek · May 30, 2010, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Quote:

Official term? Really?

who said anything about official term? i said the term as it is defined on the official wiki. that is one of many sources (listed in this thread and not) that define the acts involved with speedbooking as an exploit.

Quote:

Then again, if THIS is an exploit, 99% of the farming is an exploit as well and, by reading the EULA, we should all be banned RIGHT NOW for exploiting the flawed artificial intelligence.

stop assuming that exploit = ban. i have stated multiple times this is not the case.

Quote:

Abuse of Game Mechanics

The distinction between exploiting bugs and abusing game mechanics is a fine one. While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake, the abuse of game mechanics is the act of taking advantage of the limitations of the World of Warcraft game systems. Since the line between the sanctioned use and the abuse of game mechanics is sometimes unclear, we prefer to educate players before taking any action against the account being used.

the problem here is that its not due to the "limitations of the game systems"; it is a flaw (programming mistake) and can be relatively easy to fix by changing a few things in the code. so even by this definition, it is indeed an exploit.

point is, multiple sources have been quoted in this thread, and every single one (including the ones you quoted) indicate this as an exploit.

Risus · May 30, 2010, 08:35 PM // 20:35

TECHNICALLY it is an exploit because you are exploiting the fact that heroes don't trigger NPC spawns except the bosses, but it's very easily fixable by ANet (don't make them trigger the bosses either).

You're safe, probably 90% of the player base does this, and it would be the stupidest business decision ever to ban people for doing this.

Trub · May 30, 2010, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

You're safe, probably 90% of the player base does this

WOW!!
I don't believe that percentage for a minute!
Please don't encourage breaking of the user agreement....
dam.
As the ANet team has said..if ANYTHING feels 'wrong' or looks like an exploit...don't do it, and ASK if it is 'ok' to do that activity (of ANet).
Support is clogged enough with people that honestly believe they didn't deserve their bannings, don't add to that number for the future corrective actions.

Gill Halendt · May 30, 2010, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

who said anything about official term?

It's in the "definition" on the wiki:

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Exploit
An exploit is an official term referring to...

To bad it's not only not official. It's plain wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

the problem here is that its not due to the "limitations of the game systems"; it is a flaw (programming mistake) and can be relatively easy to fix by changing a few things in the code. so even by this definition, it is indeed an exploit.

point is, multiple sources have been quoted in this thread, and every single one (including the ones you quoted) indicate this as an exploit.

Oh no, it's not a "mistake". It's declaredly intended and was introduced because of limitations with the system. Spawning the whole map all at once wasn't possible, that's what we've been told by Lindsey about the HFFF problem, so we pretty much know it's officially because of technical limitations.

The RESULT of this debatable design solution is the possibility of abuses. It's not the "design solution" itself to be wrong -> not a bug, since you have no code to "correct", you have to entirely recode parts to change this mechanic. Which is something they might just not want to do. So they'll more likely leave it at that or redesign the mission.

There's no margin for arguing here, really. That's not me, it's IT terminology, the only one that counts here. "Abuse" and "Exploit" are not to be taken literally, but more like technical terms:

- Abuse, referring to design and mechanics abuses
- Exploit, referring to coding bug abuses

So:

- "Abusers" usually see their abusable mechanics altered (as with the HFFF abuse)
- "Exploiters" are banned (as with the duping exploit)

You might want to check this again:

Quote:

Abuse of Game Mechanics

The distinction between exploiting bugs and abusing game mechanics is a fine one. While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake, the abuse of game mechanics is the act of taking advantage of the limitations of the [...] game systems.

It's clearly stated that "bugs" are "programming mistakes" ("programming mistakes" -> "coding errors").

You probably got the definition of "bug" (and hence the one of "exploit") wrong. I see your point, in English "to exploit" means "to use or manipulate to one's advantage" and it works well here. But it's not the meaning of the term as it's used in the EULA, in that context "exploit" being a technical term to describe the exploitation of coding bugs.

dancing gnome · May 30, 2010, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Apparently if you email support, explain what speedbooking is and ask whether it's an exploit or not, they will give you an answer. So I'd suggest someone wanting to know the answer to this go and do that.

You might even cheer up some poor support dude's day by giving him something to do other than respond to the gajillion "unjustly banned" emails they are getting.

Sticks and Stones · May 30, 2010, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Sorry to the people that it will annoy, but that's exactly what I've done.

We can argue 'till kingdom come, but I say we get Anets offical word, so I seant them an email and will post the reply here when it arrives.