worddog wrote: » insomnia wrote: » I'm starting to wonder if OP is just trolling, considering another topic he made Did I make a post saying to ban exploiters? Why would I be trolling
insomnia wrote: » I'm starting to wonder if OP is just trolling, considering another topic he made
superhero6785 wrote: » worddog wrote: » insomnia wrote: » I'm starting to wonder if OP is just trolling, considering another topic he made Did I make a post saying to ban exploiters? Why would I be trolling He's saying you made a post about a potential Corruption Exploit, followed by a post saying "Don't ban exploiters".
worddog wrote: » superhero6785 wrote: » worddog wrote: » insomnia wrote: » I'm starting to wonder if OP is just trolling, considering another topic he made Did I make a post saying to ban exploiters? Why would I be trolling He's saying you made a post about a potential Corruption Exploit, followed by a post saying "Don't ban exploiters". I don't see the relation. I understand they both have the word exploit, but one is about how banning people doesn't go back in time and stop the damage, and the other is more so just trying to get people to talk about the corruption system.
insomnia wrote: » superhero6785 wrote: » worddog wrote: » insomnia wrote: » I'm starting to wonder if OP is just trolling, considering another topic he made Did I make a post saying to ban exploiters? Why would I be trolling He's saying you made a post about a potential Corruption Exploit, followed by a post saying "Don't ban exploiters". yeah, i ment topic not post. worddog wrote: » superhero6785 wrote: » worddog wrote: » insomnia wrote: » I'm starting to wonder if OP is just trolling, considering another topic he made Did I make a post saying to ban exploiters? Why would I be trolling He's saying you made a post about a potential Corruption Exploit, followed by a post saying "Don't ban exploiters". I don't see the relation. I understand they both have the word exploit, but one is about how banning people doesn't go back in time and stop the damage, and the other is more so just trying to get people to talk about the corruption system. same mentality
Dolyem wrote: » Remember kids, the existing exploit itself isn't what ruins the game. Its the people actually taking advantage of the exploit that ruin it.
worddog wrote: » If you want to make the argument that exploits don't ruin games, because they require an exploiter to use them, you literally have to admit that exploits should not be fixed, because fixing them would be a waste of time. You can't say exploits aren't the problem and then say exploits should still be fixed.
Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » If you want to make the argument that exploits don't ruin games, because they require an exploiter to use them, you literally have to admit that exploits should not be fixed, because fixing them would be a waste of time. You can't say exploits aren't the problem and then say exploits should still be fixed. I do not have to admit that, and watch this. Exploits aren't the problem, but they should still be fixed when found, and people who find them and choose not the abuse the exploit should be rewarded. People who abuse the exploits are the problem, and should be removed for knowingly disrupting the game. What an amazing concept! Punishing people for disrupting the games design while rewarding those who seek to improve it without abusing systems!
worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » If you want to make the argument that exploits don't ruin games, because they require an exploiter to use them, you literally have to admit that exploits should not be fixed, because fixing them would be a waste of time. You can't say exploits aren't the problem and then say exploits should still be fixed. I do not have to admit that, and watch this. Exploits aren't the problem, but they should still be fixed when found, and people who find them and choose not the abuse the exploit should be rewarded. People who abuse the exploits are the problem, and should be removed for knowingly disrupting the game. What an amazing concept! Punishing people for disrupting the games design while rewarding those who seek to improve it without abusing systems! I'm going to give an example of an exploit.Terrain that causes a player to become stuck during a jumping/falling animation, unable to move or cast spells that require the player to be standing still on the ground. Is it okay to PvP nearby that location? Because if it's okay to PvP nearby that location, you could very easily get players to accidentally trap themselves and then kill them while they are unable to fight back. If it isn't okay to PvP nearby that location, than the exploit itself is an issue because now players cannot PvP in that location. If you say it's okay to PvP in that location, but you must stop PvPing if a player gets stuck, then the exploit itself is still an issue because it prevented you from being able to PvP.Exploiters are bad, because exploits are bad, not the other way around. If there are no exploits to exploit, exploiters are not bad. Active exploiters are bad, exploiters with nothing to exploit are just normal players.
Dolyem wrote: » So far your entire argument seems to be allowing players to abuse found exploits which is baffling. You can find exploits to have fixed without actually abusing them and disrupting the games intended design. By your logic it is entirely ok to allow a player to dupe millions of gold if they found a means to do so, and let them do so unpunished.
worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So far your entire argument seems to be allowing players to abuse found exploits which is baffling. You can find exploits to have fixed without actually abusing them and disrupting the games intended design. By your logic it is entirely ok to allow a player to dupe millions of gold if they found a means to do so, and let them do so unpunished. So far your entire argument seems to be that exploiters are fine as long as they are hated and eventually banned after disrupting the game for people who do not engage with exploits. I'm actually more anti-exploiter than you are because I want them not to exist in games I play. You want them to exist you just want them to get banned after they've already destroyed the game. The only reason I can imagine you'd be defending exploits is because you prefer argumentation over communication when it comes to forum discussion. Which is perfectly fine and common, I respect your engagement in any form that it takes.
Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So far your entire argument seems to be allowing players to abuse found exploits which is baffling. You can find exploits to have fixed without actually abusing them and disrupting the games intended design. By your logic it is entirely ok to allow a player to dupe millions of gold if they found a means to do so, and let them do so unpunished. So far your entire argument seems to be that exploiters are fine as long as they are hated and eventually banned after disrupting the game for people who do not engage with exploits. I'm actually more anti-exploiter than you are because I want them not to exist in games I play. You want them to exist you just want them to get banned after they've already destroyed the game. The only reason I can imagine you'd be defending exploits is because you prefer argumentation over communication when it comes to forum discussion. Which is perfectly fine and common, I respect your engagement in any form that it takes. Explain to me how I want exploiters in the game when I want them to be banned for exploiting, and also explain to me how you don't want exploiters in the game, yet not banned for exploiting? Sounds like a contradiction to me. There is no such thing as an MMO without problems missed during development. So naturally there will be exploits, and people who will abuse those exploits. Establishing at the start of the game that people who abuse exploits will be banned will eliminate a good portion of those people from even participating in the abuse. The ones who exploit anyway will eventually be banned and that improves the quality of players in the community. This won't mean there wont be plenty of people happy to find and report bugs/exploits without actually utilizing any of them for personal gain. You seem to believe that the people abusing exploits are the only thing that allows them to be fixed? The only thing that concept could be based off of is if the company/developers themselves didnt give a shit about improving the game, and only made changes when they had to due to a playerbase getting loud about people exploiting in the game.
worddog wrote: » Remember kids, exploits are totally fine and developers shouldn't fix them.
Dolyem wrote: » Banning exploiters prevents those people from exploiting again. Damage will be done regardless, the only way there wont be damage is if there isnt a single exploit which wont happen. So while you fix exploits, ban the exploiters to prevent them from continuing to damage the game.
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Remember kids, exploits are totally fine and developers shouldn't fix them. Where has anyone other than you said this?
worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Banning exploiters prevents those people from exploiting again. Damage will be done regardless, the only way there wont be damage is if there isnt a single exploit which wont happen. So while you fix exploits, ban the exploiters to prevent them from continuing to damage the game. Banning exploiters does not prevent those people from exploiting again. It makes it harder because they need to make a new account. It also does not stop people who haven't exploited from becoming exploiters. Again, the damage has to be done before it can be punished. I prefer prevention, if you disagree I respect your opinion. There are games without game breaking exploits. I understand lazy developers have tried to normalize the mindset that bugs are just funny little features but games used to not be broken on arrival. Games have actually gotten a lot worse from a QA perspective. Games bricking consoles and being filled with graphical glitches and crashes. Exploits that do not cause massive issues are obviously more acceptable, but the goal should be zero exploits, and that should be the mindset of the developers. If you want an ambitious game don't set the bar so low.
worddog wrote: » GrilledCheeseMojito wrote: » worddog wrote: » By allowing exploiters to exist, you create a metal detector for exploits. Instead of only the top guilds knowing secret exploits that they can use for their own gain, random players can show the world these exploits and the developers can more easily fix them. Except you don't need said random players to exploit the bug in order to find it. This problem has been solved for over 20 years in a different MMO - Kingdom of Loathing. They will mercilessly perma-ban anyone who performs a serious exploit...but at the same time, there is always a prominent "Report Bug" button throughout their UI, and if you do find something legitimately damaging, you get awarded a special weapon that is both very functional and can be shown off to whoever you want. Heck, they even have a "Bigger bugfinder blade" if you find something horrendous enough to cause major damage to the game, like item duping exploits that would ruin the economy. It's just the same as in the real security world. If you allow for responsible disclosure, you listen to your reporter, and you offer those who find your bugs either a reward, recognition, or both, while still banning any exploiters you detect, this will create a healthy environment for everyone. To my knowledge, there haven't been any major economic bugs in fifteen years in the game due to the effectiveness of this policy. There are plenty of people who will poke around your game, find problems, and let you know, because that's something those people find fun. Or you have people like me, who break every piece of technology they interact with in new and exciting ways. You don't have to take the damage to your game's culture that letting exploiters run wild would create when there are so many easier ways to get the bug reports you need. I've never heard of that game but that sounds pretty good. I'm only taking about my experience with games I've played, and QA teams I've seen. QA tends to be really low on the priority list for a lot of studios.
GrilledCheeseMojito wrote: » worddog wrote: » By allowing exploiters to exist, you create a metal detector for exploits. Instead of only the top guilds knowing secret exploits that they can use for their own gain, random players can show the world these exploits and the developers can more easily fix them. Except you don't need said random players to exploit the bug in order to find it. This problem has been solved for over 20 years in a different MMO - Kingdom of Loathing. They will mercilessly perma-ban anyone who performs a serious exploit...but at the same time, there is always a prominent "Report Bug" button throughout their UI, and if you do find something legitimately damaging, you get awarded a special weapon that is both very functional and can be shown off to whoever you want. Heck, they even have a "Bigger bugfinder blade" if you find something horrendous enough to cause major damage to the game, like item duping exploits that would ruin the economy. It's just the same as in the real security world. If you allow for responsible disclosure, you listen to your reporter, and you offer those who find your bugs either a reward, recognition, or both, while still banning any exploiters you detect, this will create a healthy environment for everyone. To my knowledge, there haven't been any major economic bugs in fifteen years in the game due to the effectiveness of this policy. There are plenty of people who will poke around your game, find problems, and let you know, because that's something those people find fun. Or you have people like me, who break every piece of technology they interact with in new and exciting ways. You don't have to take the damage to your game's culture that letting exploiters run wild would create when there are so many easier ways to get the bug reports you need.
worddog wrote: » By allowing exploiters to exist, you create a metal detector for exploits. Instead of only the top guilds knowing secret exploits that they can use for their own gain, random players can show the world these exploits and the developers can more easily fix them.
worddog wrote: » Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Remember kids, exploits are totally fine and developers shouldn't fix them. Where has anyone other than you said this? Dolyem wrote: » Remember kids, the existing exploit itself isn't what ruins the game. Its the people actually taking advantage of the exploit that ruin it. If exploits don't ruin the game, developers should not waste their precious time fixing them, when they could just ban the people who exploit them. The only reason you would fix exploits, is if they themselves were bad.
worddog wrote: » If exploits exist, exploitation will exist because you can't ban them until they've actually exploited something and at that point it's already too late, the damage is done. Banning exploiters is great for punishing bad behavior, but it doesn't prevent bad behavior, only fixing exploits does that.
