Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,475
# 21
11-30-2012, 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwebranflakes View Post
Actually, exploits should never be posted on the forums PM those directly to one of the 3 of us and/ or file a GM ticket (emphasis on "and"). Bugs with repo steps are fine, but you know when something is an exploit It seems that this voldy was a bug.

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 230
# 22
11-30-2012, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehale View Post
Voldemort was the code word coined in reference to an issue regarding shuttles and ships gaining extra bridge officer slots.
Actually, I think when I first introduced the term it described the "any item in any slot" issue.

Last edited by fakehilbert; 11-30-2012 at 12:27 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 23
11-30-2012, 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orondis View Post
Thanks for fixing the voldy bug devs!
Indeed, and for fixing the private ques as well! Well done. Here here!

@gradstudent1
PvP Boot Camp Project Leader Emeritus
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 434
# 24
11-30-2012, 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakehilbert View Post
Actually, I think when I first introduced the term it described the "any item in any slot" issue.
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.
__________________________________________
Foundry: Yet Another Borg Mission
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
May not actually be "way" cooler or even "slightly" cooler.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,737
# 25
11-30-2012, 02:42 PM
Yeah, let's see if they really fixed it, or if they just fixed one iteration of it.

We know that it could be done different ways in the past.


Click here and here if you are interested in learning more about PvP.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 318
# 26
11-30-2012, 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grindsmygears1 View Post
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.
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.
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,227
# 27
11-30-2012, 03:14 PM
This whole argument, and several prior, seem to stem from a difference of opinion on the definition of the term "exploit." And, it appears that I have a different definition than most. Perhaps we can put this whole semantic debate behind us, if I offer some clarification.

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.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Systems Design
"Play smart!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Kurland here...
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 951
# 28
11-30-2012, 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwebranflakes View Post
Actually, exploits should never be posted on the forums PM those directly to one of the 3 of us and/ or file a GM ticket (emphasis on "and"). Bugs with repo steps are fine, but you know when something is an exploit It seems that this voldy was a bug.

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=
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
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,475
# 29
11-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
This whole argument, and several prior, seem to stem from a difference of opinion on the definition of the term "exploit." And, it appears that I have a different definition than most. Perhaps we can put this whole semantic debate behind us, if I offer some clarification.

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.
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.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 627
# 30
11-30-2012, 03:34 PM
maybe I am missing the point, but aren't all exploits also coding errors.. things the code allows players to do that give a clear advantage to the player that were not intended?

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?
my new saying is "cryptic made me do it" in lieu of the the "devil"
Member since January 2010. I AM NOT A PWE FAN!!!!

Last edited by tfomega; 11-30-2012 at 03:45 PM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 PM.