Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cheats, bugs, exploits, hacks & VALID GAMEPLAY TRICKS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cheats, bugs, exploits, hacks & VALID GAMEPLAY TRICKS

    Ok, I've been thinking over all this stuff happening with Twisted & I've come to two conclusions:

    --- Twisted is undoubtably a fool, & has somehow managed to get himself banned even quicker than myg0t did

    --- Whenever a new bug/trick is discovered in Thievery, we have to put up with a huge 5 page argument about whether this new style is valid, or just downright cheating

    Now, incase you haven't guessed, I'm starting this thread about the second point, because I'm a strong believer in "exploiting the limits" of the unreal engine, & I don't want to be acused of cheating if I ever manage to discover a new trick
    (Note to LR: No luck with the last one after all )

    Therefore, I think that we as a community should decide upon some set rules that dictate whether any new tricks are acceptable or not. I'll set down some basic guidelines & we'll see what we can all agree on.

    So heres my ideas about right & wrong:

    A tactic is acceptable if:

    -(OPTIONAL) It can't be guaranteed to be replicated (ie. a lag spike in a network accidentally gives one player full health)

    -(REQUIRED) It doesn't prevent one side from achieving victory (note, some levels have extra exits & so blocking one doesn't prevent victory)

    -(REQUIRED) It has a counter-tactic that doesn't require players to use "unacceptable" tactics themselves

    -(REQUIRED) It doesn't require any third-party software or scripting hacks to be running alongside Thievery

    -(OPTIONAL) In a pre-arranged game (ie. guild war), it has been decided that this particular trick will be allowed (or vice versa, with certain tactics being temporarily outlawed)

    Those are the main ones that come to mind for now.

    I really think this is important because I rarely see a new strategy discussed without people starting flame-wars, & so this would save a lot of headaches all-round.

  • #2
    Originally posted by The_Dan
    (Note to LR: No luck with the last one after all )
    That's what you think.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The_Dan
      --- Whenever a new bug/trick is discovered in Thievery, we have to put up with a huge 5 page argument about whether this new style is valid, or just downright cheating
      I don't see that as too much of a problem - I guess that this happens with most games in beta phase. Is assuming and holding a sniper position in Counter-Strike legal or not? I believe there's been at least as many arguments about that back when CS was still beta.

      Therefore, I think that we as a community should decide upon some set rules that dictate whether any new tricks are acceptable or not. I'll set down some basic guidelines & we'll see what we can all agree on.
      Good idea. I still think it should be handled in a per-case basis, though - not all tactics and quirks are the same.

      A tactic is acceptable if:

      -(OPTIONAL) It can't be guaranteed to be replicated (ie. a lag spike in a network accidentally gives one player full health)
      The idea is okay, but the expression still might need some tweaking. Mario KOs can, obviously, be replicated, as can crate stacking. The "OPTIONAL" in the beginning makes that okay IMHO, though.

      -(REQUIRED) It doesn't prevent one side from achieving victory (note, some levels have extra exits & so blocking one doesn't prevent victory)
      Fine with me.

      -(REQUIRED) It has a counter-tactic that doesn't require players to use "unacceptable" tactics themselves
      Yes.

      -(REQUIRED) It doesn't require any third-party software or scripting hacks to be running alongside Thievery
      No. Simple example: Teamspeak or any other third-party voice comm software.
      In that case, I think it's a thing of politeness to inform other players that you're using such a thing, though.
      I get the idea you're after, but, as with the first one, the expression itself should be changed.

      -(OPTIONAL) In a pre-arranged game (ie. guild war), it has been decided that this particular trick will be allowed (or vice versa, with certain tactics being temporarily outlawed)
      Yes.

      I really think this is important because I rarely see a new strategy discussed without people starting flame-wars, & so this would save a lot of headaches all-round.
      That is not a problem of the strategies, but rather a problem of the people, innit?

      What I'm going for is that I don't have a problem with people discussing newly discovered tactics and their "validity" and "fairness" - but we should stick to the topic there. Review the tactic, its impact on gameplay, its effects and its requirements. Then, decide whether it's valid and fair or not.
      I think instead of rules that state what tactics are valid or not, we'd rather need rules that state HOW to evaluate them.
      I say: if a new tactic is found, start a thread, describe it, review it, then decide whether it's valid or not. I mean, most of us usually are able to show some serious, non "y00 ar dum!" behavior - so why doesn't it work when it comes to stuff like that?

      [/blah]
      Outie

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheOutrider
        The idea is okay, but the expression still might need some tweaking. Mario KOs can, obviously, be replicated, as can crate stacking. The "OPTIONAL" in the beginning makes that okay IMHO, though.
        Both your examples here are specifically scripted for and intended to be in the game. The Dan is referring to things that are quirks that might give one side an advantage for one round at most, but can't be relied on to occur again, such as whistlers that don't stop glowing. I think the idea is that while something MIGHT happen again, it can't be reliably reproduced.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by LaughingRat
          Both your examples here are specifically scripted for and intended to be in the game. The Dan is referring to things that are quirks that might give one side an advantage for one round at most, but can't be relied on to occur again, such as whistlers that don't stop glowing. I think the idea is that while something MIGHT happen again, it can't be reliably reproduced.
          Yeah, I know that. I'm just trying to be a nitpicky prick. Misformulated rules can go bad, depending on who applies them. Also see: Anti-gambling law in greece.

          For those who didn't hear about that, Greece passed a law against gambling that was, choice-of-words-wise, very poorly expressed and could also be interpreted to be prohibiting any kind of electronic games, including home-use video and computer games. Some people - also nitpicky bastards like me - then tried to actually enforce the "generic" interpretation of that law, resulting in Internet Caf├ęs being closed down, etc.
          Any of the Greek people in here, correct me when I'm wrong.
          Outie

          Comment


          • #6
            sorry Outrider, but your a little late

            I was asking about this, and was informed that the ruling had changed so computer games etc are not outlawed. Just video gambling machines
            CTG

            Rhymin & Stealin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrock
              sorry Outrider, but your a little late

              I was asking about this, and was informed that the ruling had changed so computer games etc are not outlawed. Just video gambling machines
              Yeah, I know that as well. I'm not that backward.
              That doesn't change the fact that it was poorly written in the beginning and that it did go bad for a while because it was.
              Outie

              Comment


              • #8
                True. I honestly thought it was still like that, until someone here corrected me.

                Very poorly written law. I think what they said when outlawing everything, was that they could not identify the difference between a video game, and a video gambling machine. :lol:
                CTG

                Rhymin & Stealin

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LaughingRat
                  Both your examples here are specifically scripted for and intended to be in the game. The Dan is referring to things that are quirks that might give one side an advantage for one round at most, but can't be relied on to occur again, such as whistlers that don't stop glowing. I think the idea is that while something MIGHT happen again, it can't be reliably reproduced.
                  Yep, pretty much.

                  Originally posted by LaughingRat
                  Originally posted by The_Dan
                  (Note to LR: No luck with the last one after all )
                  That's what you think.
                  He says immediately after sending me an email saying:
                  "I couldn't get that bug to work, have you had any more luck?" :lol:


                  As for all this stuff about Greece, lets not drift OT here, this is the thing that I'm trying to prevent with my proposed idea.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheOutrider
                    -(REQUIRED) It doesn't require any third-party software or scripting hacks to be running alongside Thievery
                    No. Simple example: Teamspeak or any other third-party voice comm software.
                    In that case, I think it's a thing of politeness to inform other players that you're using such a thing, though.
                    I get the idea you're after, but, as with the first one, the expression itself should be changed.
                    Hmm, I hadn't considered that idea but technically this isn't an issue because:

                    It's technically the same as phoning up your fellow players during the match, which is perfectly legal.

                    & if you say that cost prevents that from being feasible, then should we be outlawing people who pay for fast connections, because they have lower ping?


                    You're not the only person that can nitpick

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm sorry to say that this law was devastating for many internet cafes, etc.
                      According to this law if I was playing chess in my PC then I was commiting a crime!
                      This law sucks big time. But I guess this happens when a country doesn't keep up with technology. To give you an example, the most common Internet connection here is 56K. If someone has ISDN 64K then he is considered very lucky! There is no cable connection, no DSLs (but they will soon) and above all they cost a fortune. Greece really sucks when it comes to Internet technology.
                      I Need Training!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The_Judge
                        I'm sorry to say that this law was devastating for many internet cafes, etc.
                        According to this law if I was playing chess in my PC then I was commiting a crime!
                        This law sucks big time. But I guess this happens when a country doesn't keep up with technology. To give you an example, the most common Internet connection here is 56K. If someone has ISDN 64K then he is considered very lucky! There is no cable connection, no DSLs (but they will soon) and above all they cost a fortune. Greece really sucks when it comes to Internet technology.
                        Hmm, have you tried to get sattelite service? As long as there are no silly laws, that should be availible anywhere. And TWO-WAY is the only way to go, unless you really want dialup return. The only problem with satellite service is that no one really advertises it...yet. Not sure why though.

                        Kiech
                        Kiech

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Satellite is Ok for internet browsing but sucks for ping. Worse then 56 k.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TheOutrider
                            What I'm going for is that I don't have a problem with people discussing newly discovered tactics and their "validity" and "fairness" - but we should stick to the topic there.
                            C'mon people, I was trying to start a serious thread here :|

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The_Dan
                              C'mon people, I was trying to start a serious thread here :|
                              Dan you are not serious when you say this: "-(REQUIRED) It doesn't prevent one side from achieving victory (note, some levels have extra exits & so blocking one doesn't prevent victory) ".

                              Honestly, you don't expect me to stop blocking all the exits just because you (the thief) DO NOT KNOW HOW to counter this strategy. If that's what you are saying then I suggest you start spectating a lot more and go practice as well. If both fails then ASK for help from someone more experienced to show you a things or two. As long as I don't tell you how to play then I expect from you to respect my playstyle as well.
                              I Need Training!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X