test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
What EXACTLY is an "exploit"?
omegashinzon
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
Does STO have a special dictionary or does an "Exploit" still require a GLITCH or VULNERABILITY? I'm constantly seeing efficient or large scale use of features in this game being called exploits even though they don't fit Webster's/Wikipedia/or any other definition of one outside of STO. "Was not the intended use." is the only criteria that apparently matters here. By that standard, ANYTHING in game could instantly be called one. I don't know whether to blame players or devs on this one. Thoughts?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
So realistically, you only need to have the exact number of doffs that you need. ~leadme2kirk
Post edited by omegashinzon on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Perhaps an example of some type would help move along the discussion, that brought you to this type of conclusion?
something that the game will allow you to do.. but its not the way it was intended..
but to me it would be something that you glitched to make work.. something that the game should never let you do.. no matter what and you had to make certain things stack in such a way to trick it into doing
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
Exploit = Costing Cryptic money.
This is how they have operated so far....
seems a fair appraisal.
So as an example, the recently patched Foundry Bug that allowed players, (some of whom were banned for this...) to run multiple Foundry missions in parallel and earn more Dilithium ore then they were 'authorized' to would be an example of a 'exploit'
While you are right with the broken mechanic as an exploit definition unfortunately many also see anything that kills them too easily in game as an exploit.
This leads to the term being used often in complaint (from ignorance) threads for perfectly acceptable pratoces.
R.I.P
Basically what can be considered as an exploit would be those innocent cheats in single player games applied to an MMO. Its one thing to cheat if you are only one affected by it, but it is something completely different when other people are involved.
Well for starters (certainly not limited to) the 100 item cap on mail. Calling 101 doffs in your mail an exploit is clearly ridiculous. Yet many white knights are doing so based on the loose guidelines that anything not "intended" by devs is such.
Yes, the dual definition is what I'm getting at. You know what an exploit really is yet STO definition is much broader.
That was not a bug. That was poorly thought out programming that by the way only happened because they were so busy policing the foundries and not fixing bugs.
I see what you did there. ;-D In case you haven't noticed though, many new LoR features (not all tac related) are borderline OP as well, thereby leveling the playing field. Original problem solved in a more than you think intended way.
Those all sound like exploits to me. Nothing to get banned over, but things that should be fixed. Far as expecting people to not use/do something advantageous in a game (outside of hacking or something ofc) because it's against your moral beliefs is never gonna happen though.
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
that foundry thing should never have be seen as an exploit.. it was not a glitch, it wasnt something you had to perform in any exact circumstance to make work. it also didnt take any special missions, you could have done it with any mission on the list just doing them and turning them all in at the end at the same time.
it was lack of programming by the devs.. which they fixed by putting a 1 hour CD on foundry mission rewards.
by your definition you can call accepting the dailies finishing them, then waiting 20 hours and completing them 2x in a row during the rep event an exploit.. which it isnt..
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
An exploit is to use any game mechanic, bug or otherwise as it was not intended to be used, for an unfair advantage over players that are not aware of it. They don't have to be bugs and they don't have to be something that is difficult to reproduce.
This is why I have problems with players who complain that X-exploit shouldn't be removed because its a "feature." They are the Devs, it's their game, they can decide whether or not something is being used as they intended.
I would call an 'exploit' any game mechanism you use by illegal means ('illegal' within this context meaning 'hacking or otherwise modifying the game other than thru regular means'). Finding a way to start multiple, parallel Foundry missions at the same time, while unethical, is NOT something I would call an 'exploit,' as you're merely doing nothing other than what the game is offering you.
If it were an exploit, then so is, say, buying Elite fleet equipment, using a map invite to a higher Tiered starbase. If people find out something to their benefit, and did nothing illegal to the game client or servers, then it can't be an exploit. A loophole that may need to be fixed, perhaps; but not an exploit.
just because the devs didnt intend it to be that way, doesnt mean its an exploit tho..
by definition, if you didnt have to exploit the game to make it work.. its not an exploit..
it was then just an unintended feature..
im not arguing that its not up to the devs discretion to patch or change any feature they see fit..
what i am saying is calling everything an exploit is dumb.
a real exploit would be finding a way to put more then 40 items in the exchange.. or putting a price above 500m.. or refining more then 8000 ore per day.. something that the game does not let you do..
the game certainly lets you choose more then one mission at a time.. it also lets you wait to turn those missions in..
sometimes i have 4 or 5 completed foundry missions at a time.. now when i turn them in, i have to wait an hour to turn in another one..
next you will call that an exploit too?
PS this game is full of unfair advantages.. there are many many many tricks to get things that many people have no idea about..
i myself dont have a problem making 20 to 30m a day.. should that be called an exploit?
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
oh wait, that would be a feature working as intended?
see where im going here. something that helps us is bad.. something that doesnt they dont care about.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
The reason is because intent is a factor. Games will always have bugs and design flaws. The heart of an exploit is if someone is knowingly using a design flaw to gain an unintended advantage over other players.
Sometimes this can be difficult to determine. Most game devs do the best they can to make that determination, but occasionally those devs make mistakes. It's not like they want to be unfair. They gain nothing by angering legitimate customers. They have to evaluate the situation and decide what they think is fair, then balance that against what will upset the least amount of players. Personally, I don't envy them in that regard. Usually it's a lose/lose for them. If they take action, someone will be upset. If they don't take action, someone will be upset. That's not an ideal situation for anybody, devs included.
this is what im talking about..
you can never exploit anything by accident..
if it was something you could be doing by accident. its not an exploit..
its just something that the devs over looked... poor testing.. but we knew that already as MOST of the bugs from tribble went live.. even the pages and pages of bugs listed on the test forum.. many of the bugs from season 7 are still around.. and those been listed for almost a year.
nobody should ever be getting banned or in trouble for something the devs mess up on..
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
I see your point there, but (and this is just my probably wrong opinion) I don't necessarily agree.
I don't think it's fair to other players if someone takes advantage of a dev mistake.
For example, I remember in another MMO, there was a very obvious bug in beta that gave players a huge advantage when it comes to earning in-game currency. They did the bug reports - fully aware that this was a bug - but the devs didn't fix the bug and it made it to the live game.
Once it got live, those same players used the same bug to blast past all other other players, allowing them to have a major headstart in getting the best gear for PVP, etc.
Those players got temporarily banned and were outraged. They said, "We submitted it to the devs as a bug, but they didn't fix it, so we just assumed it was intended!"
Every person on that forum knew this bug wasn't intended, including the players who used it.
Now, I'm the first to admit that the devs should have fixed the bug. Absolutely, they should have.
But the players who knowingly used that bug to gain an advantage in PVP were also wrong. It was incredibly unfair to the folks who either didn't know about the bug or chose not to use it (because it was a bug).
Basically, I'm just saying a dev mistake shouldn't be full permission for someone to knowingly abuse a bug. The hard part is determining who knew it was a bug and who didn't. Usually, it's pretty obvious, but not always. When it's not, the devs have to evaluate what's fair to the majority of players. It's not a "devs vs exploiters" thing... it's a "what's the fairest thing for the non-exploiters" thing.
Intent to do what?! To gain an unfair advantage over other players? Be careful not to fall prey to the same circular reasoning as found in the TOS:
"(l) Using or exploiting any bugs, errors, or design flaws to obtain unauthorized access to the Service or to gain an unfair advantage over other players,"
Basically that says 'We deem unfair... anything that gives you an unfair advantage.' Which is still saying absolutely, circularly, nothing!
See, without defining what 'unfair' really is, the whole thing just becomes, as the Germans call it, a Leerformel (lit. 'empty fomula'). Like when Plato, in his Republic, states: "A friend ought always to do good to a friend and never evil," yet fails to define what 'good' and 'evil' are then.
Then there's the Principle Of Legality. This is a principle, in criminal law, designed to guarantee the primacy of the law, so that neither state prosecution nor defendants are exposed to arbitrary bias. In normal English: the law has to define, clearly, what you are allowed to do, and what not. And the law can't use Leerformeln like 'unfair' (for one, next to simply being empty, 'unfair' is a post-facto evaluation: i.e. the result of having evaluated an alleged violation of the TOS; and, as such, can itself not be part of said TOS).
I don't see how what I said was circular at all. I'm just saying the devs have to determine if the intent of the "exploiter" was to take advantage of a design flaw (or bug) that the player knew - ahead of time - was not designed to be part of the gameplay. Like in the example I gave, it's fairly reasonable to assume these players knew this was a bug because they all admitted to reporting it as a bug.
That's not circular. I admit it's an assumption that could very well be wrong because it's impossible to prove what was in the player's mind at the time, but it's far from circular.
My only point is that exploits are not as easy to define as it might seem on the surface. Exploits are tricky business. If the devs are too lenient about exploits, they stand to lose customers who feel the game isn't fair because of cheaters... but if the devs are too strict about exploits, they stand to lose customers who feel like they're being treated like criminals when they're not (in their opinion) doing anything wrong.
The only way the devs can handle this is by using their own judgment to determine if the player knew he or she was manipulating an unintended gameplay bug (or flaw) and then to determine if taking action will help or hurt the majority of players.
I'm just saying this isn't as black and white as it seems.
Exactly. Or accepting 3 Exploration/Diplomacy missions that overlap. No one is crying that those are an exploit. Why? Because the rewards are Skill Point and minimal things. Suddenly, exploit definition becomes all too subjective to personal opinion.
This is who's, your definition? Certainly not Miriam Websters or even wikipedia. Subjective subejective subjective.
Again, nothing in the textbook definition implies "intent". This invented on the spot logic is the entire problem here.
The lack of definition clarity (the entire point of this thread) is allowing anyone to call anything an exploit. Name calling is high on the list of unethical argument techniques and slamming someone(s) as an "Exploiter" is an easy way to win an argument. Be it by Devs or Players. Total rubbish in my book and an all too easy way to skirt the real issue. (Such as the "What do I do about common DoFFs for my fleet?" argument for the 100 item mail cap. You see 3 types of responses without fail. #1 I understand. #2 "Just _-do this-_!" (doesn't understand) or #3 "Exploiter!" (doesn't care as it doesn't affect them)
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
Not really as they are designed to be used that way.
An exploit is just using something in a way that was not intended by those who designed or implimented it. Not all exploits are cheats, nor do they need to have someone disadvantaged for them to be an exploit.
So by your logic and explanation, if the devs decided MK XII equipment was not "intended" to be used exclusively by a player or ship, it would be an "exploit" to have done so. You rather contradicted yourself if I'm not mistaken.
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
Nope. The intention has to be at design. The equipment is designed to be used on ships and by players, that is it's sole purpose therefore it can not be an exploit.
It wasn't, right up until Cryptic decided it was
The sole purpose of attachments in mail is to send items between characters.
The sole purpose of MK XII gear is to be used by players.
The amount of items sent was never defined.
The amount of gear to use was never defined.
The time between sending items and receiving is irrelevant.
The time between obtaining gear and using is irrelevant.
"Storing" items in mail was never an exploit.
"Storing" MK XII gear is not an exploit.
Therefore:
~IF 101 items or more in mail is an exploit due to dev intentions of a self-imposed limit.
~A ship full of MK XII gear could be deemed such as well if a dev ever decided ships were not "intended" to have all MK XII gear.
I'm not saying your point of view is completely bunk, but perhaps you never thought of it THIS way? You may want to reconsider the logic you are defending and how it could negatively affect you in numerous ways.
That's because it is not nor was it ever an exploit. There was no flawed mechanic. They just suddenly saw an opportunity to cash in and flaming complainers as "exploiters" is the preferred method to squash them.
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting. ~thlaylierah
In truth, only the devs can label something an exploit.
Often times you hear the word exploit a lot after a new patch since many people will go out there and try to do the same exact things they did pre-patch. When something new is now better than the old way, these players tend to scream exploit rather than adapt.
That is not to say that patches don't introduce new bugs and exploits (this happens in every game ever made to be patchable) but more often than not the only thing that is happened is a change in how things work
For a second I thought you were speaking about the Expose/Exploit mechanic of ground combat...
Then I realized you were speaking to the "Playing as Intended"-model that has been foisted upon us.