test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Thanks for Fixing Voldy
orondis
Member Posts: 1,447 Arc User
Thanks for fixing the voldy bug devs!
Previously Alendiak
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Post edited by orondis on
0
Comments
@Aquitaine985
Lag Industries STO PvP Fleet - Executive
A Sad Panda of Industrial calibre.
2010: This is Cryptic PvP. Please hold the line, your call is very important to us...
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
You can find/contact me in game as @PatricianVetinari. Playing STO since Feb 2010.
In the future, if any of you come across something this major in the future and are uncomfortable discussing it openly on the forums, please feel free to PM myself, PWEBranflakes or ArchonCryptic directly. These sorts of bugs need thorough documentation and explanation before we can track down the root causes, and just making a post that says nothing other than "Voldemort is back!" is approximately 0% helpful. Especially since multiple different bugs have been given that nickname, now.
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
Thanks for fixing it in the "present" though
Those damn premades!
So when people reported this on tribble, they must not have told you the exact way to reproduce it. That explains why you released it to live anyway.
Lol...I'm copy/pasting this from another forum discussing this same topic.
"It would be like ford releasing a new car that knowing it has a tendency to have its brake lines blow apart while driving. Can you imagine ford coming out and saying
"These sorts of bugs need thorough documentation and explanation before we can track down the root causes, and just making a post that says nothing other than "I have no brakes! is back!" is approximately 0% helpful"
Actually, exploits should never be posted on the forums
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
Still doesn't know about Voldy, but since I don't PvP, I guess I'll be content in my ignorance and happy that it's fixed.
:rolleyes:
You can find/contact me in game as @PatricianVetinari. Playing STO since Feb 2010.
I'm starting to think that you don't. Exploiting is taking advantage of a bug.
Or are you saying the old Voldemort wasn't a bug? Why is the new one suddenly one.
This just seams like an excuse for allowing moderators to ban people depending on their mood. :rolleyes:
Vornek@oberlerchner123 - Join Date: July 2008
We didn't have to in this case, Bort said he didn't consider it an exploit.
>>The improperly written code worked as it was intended.
:rolleyes:
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
A bug/exploit that's hard to do is an exploit.
A bug/exploit that's easy to do is a bug?
Vornek@oberlerchner123 - Join Date: July 2008
Voldemort was the code word coined in reference to an issue regarding shuttles and ships gaining extra bridge officer slots.
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
Bugs and expoits are NOT mutually exclusive. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp. If a bug exists and that bug gives a player an advantage and there's an opportunity for the player not to use the bug, then they player is exploiting if you want to admit it or not. Further, using the exploit against another player is griefing if you want to admit it or not. You're playing games b/c your company is too cheap to enforce it's own ToS.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
Indeed, and for fixing the private ques as well! Well done. Here here!
Aye, and as in this case, adopted in reference to extra bridge officer slots. I suppose this is the confusion created when we have to mince words about problems we aren't supposed to talk about.
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
We know that it could be done different ways in the past.
The issue was when it showed up on Tribble it was far worse and anyone who had a shuttle simply had every slotted officers full powers. Didnt need to do any ship swapping you just logged on and declared your Kirkhood to the first unfortunate mob with a BO3 APA3 DEM3 GW3 blast.
So when that went away it was late in the test cycle everyone saw there was no more madness and declare it to be all better. So fault lies with a probably incomplete fix to the issue and tribble testers not doing a thorough enough followup. Definitely in my case as I logged in saw the powers were gone and said ahh good thats all fixed now and then left.
In my opinion, as a Dev, somebody that is Exploiting is deserving of punishment. By extension, an action should be called an Exploit only if it is an action that the player should be held accountable for, and face punitive measures for.
If a player is utilizing a coding error, potentially without their knowledge, they should not be held accountable for it, in my opinion. And therefore, by my personal definition, that action is not Exploiting. To call it Exploiting would imply that disciplinary actions would be warranted.
My opinion on this may be quite bias, however.
For example, it was my responsibility that the Jem'Hadar Shield was benefiting from Brace-for-Impact Doffs in error at the time they rolled out to the public. It would have been improper - unfair, illogical - to punish players for utilizing that combination of items/powers, when it was MY responsibility that they were malfunctioning. Therefore, doing so was not what I would define as an Exploit.
Cryptic - Lead Systems Designer
"Play smart!"
Didn't you get the memo? This wasn't an exploit. Which means everyone that was banned trying to get the devs attention about this non-exploit by posting in the forums should be unbanned.
@DevolvedOne
If the bug worked across all shields I'd agree with you. However, it didn't take much effort in that example to see not only was is triggering Hazzard and Shield Distribution Doffs it also spammed client logs so bad it lagged people out. It was really bad b/c many people didn't know to disable their logging.
The solution from a player perspective was simple, dont use the shields until they're fixed. I agree players should be punished only when they know of a bug. But, I had asked in a thread and got zero reply if we could have a thread similar to the "is it working as intended" thread so people could be pointed the thread by GMs if they were reported. Multiple offenses should be temporary bans.
Really, that was a horrid example you gave b/c not only did people have an advantage, they could actually grief people into DCing.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
bots in the game that plague maps for rewards without contribution exist because there isn't a conditional in the code that says if they are idle for more than 3 minutes, kick them.
Are those people banned because of a error in the conceptualization of the code that resulted in it not getting implemented (despite the fact that you do know about the problem) or is it because the code also allows them to do it and they are still punished which results in it becoming wrong at that point?
Do conceptualization errors versus coding errors define offenses in which one could be banned or not banned, respectively?
I AM NOT A FAN OF PWE!!!!
MEMBER SINCE JANUARY 2010
Think of it like this p2wsucks, if you where a newbie logged into the game after downloading it from steam and you where using game braking buggs in sto and got banned, how cool would that be?