Game mechanics vs Exploits, and the Winner is?

[Guest]

Hail: hehe, Post and Flame away at each other, Weeeeeeee.

Exploits are using something outside the game to give you an advantage of some kind in the game. Speedhacks as example. or, Taking advantage of Game Mechanics in a way that UO deems is to big of an advantage.

Game Mechanics are the things that the game will allow you do, even though it was or may not have been set up that way. Some of these are bad, and some of them most of us do everyday.

Teleporting onto Roofs at the Bank, or other buildings, as example. This was never intended. Why does the Moonglow bank have that teleporter up there now? Because of all the players that got up there, and could not figure out to get down. The Game never intended for us to be on rooftops.

Why are those flowers, and that fountain outside the fence by Moonglow Bank.? In the old days you could stand outside the fence, "out of guard zone", and shoot arrows at the guards at the bank, and kill them, and get all their stuff. First UO put up a sign that this was not allowed, and later they blocked off the area.

Teleporting onto tables that monsters cant reach you at. Teleporting to safe spots. Blocking monsters in with various items. Going across server lines to heal, and then back. Hell, even going in/out of dungeons to heal. To different degrees these are all part of Game mechanics. It becomes an Exploit when EA says it is. They Tell you stop, and maybe later they try to prevent it from being possible at all.

So, when does a Game Mechanic go from being OK, to becoming an Exploit? For this discussion, we are talking in game only, and not using any outside script, or program.

 

[Rykus]

<blockquote><hr>

So, when does a Game Mechanic go from being OK, to becoming an Exploit? For this discussion, we are talking in game only, and not using any outside script, or program.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already answered your own question.

<blockquote><hr>

It becomes an Exploit when EA says it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you looking for? This seems fairly obvious to me...

 

[Guest]

No an exploit is using anything in the game in a way that was not intended to give yourself an advantage this can be unintended game mechanics or ways to beat delay timers using bugs an so on.

Speed hacks scripts and so on are in a different category illegal third party applications.

These are the 2 main ways cheating is defined.

Example A:

You find a way to create an item that was not normally a part of the game already such as the white or orange cloth we see now. This was an exploit because it did not use anything other than unintended game mechanics but produced something foreign into the game.

Example B:

You use a speed hack to run faster on foot than others can on a mount. Or you use a script to automatically gather resources. Or you use anything else that requires more than JUST UO be it a script or any other program. This is using illegal third party applications EVEN IF they do not give you any kind of advantage over another player it is still considered illegal to use it.

Example C:

You find a way to use any object that requires a delay between uses without having to wait for that delay time before reuse. Again an exploit UNLESS the method required a program or script to allow reuse before the timer would have allowed. If no outside program is needed this is an exploit however if an outside program is used your now breaking 2 rules at once by using an exploit and also using an illegal third party application.

 

[Guest]

Exploit
Stagnate resources spots and using recall books to map 50 valorite spots that you mine over and over.

Exploit
Carrying 20 bags of sending and sending all the gold to the bank.


These were changed because of an unintended use.

An exploit is using a feature in a way that it was never intended.
Some exploits give you nothing, other exploits let you farm.

Using a healing wand to run through parafields is an exploit.

 

[Guest]

I agree with Raven. Using the Heal wand to break paralysis is an exploit.

However an example of something that was never intended, but is not an exploit:

Using a Harm Wand to break a paralysis---
Setting up a UO, or UOA, macro to equip the harm wand and use the wand on yourself to break the paralysis.

While the designers likely never intended this as a use for harm wands, the use in the described fashion should not be considered an exploit since the user does take damage, and using UO or UOA macros is legal.

 

[imported_revenant2]

These are semantics differences, but here's my sense on it.

To me, there's 3 categories of things, listed in order of descending evilness:

Exploit,
game mechanics abuse,
game mechanics misuse.

In my mind,

the exploit uses a bug to create an effect that is expressly disallowed within the game,

the abuse uses a game mechanics issue to create an effect that is intended as expressly disallowed in the game, and

the misuse is using a game mechanics characteristic in a way that is not intended by the developers but is not expressly disallowed.

An example of an exploit would be how it's possible to deliberately screw around with and break the Archery moving shot game mechanics and get moving shot to apply to the wrong weapon. It uses a specific group of client actions which, when performed in this way, do not serve a legitimate purpose in the game. The end result is that someone can moving shot with a crossbow, a weapon which does not have moving shot as a real weapon special.

An example of an abuse is the way that it is possible to be mounted while swinging a bola. Bolas were expressly intended to be used while dismounted, but a game mechanics issue is allowing it.

An example of a misuse would be the dart-trapped para breaking box. It's a natural function of taking damage that it breaks you out of being paralyzed.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

These are semantics differences, but here's my sense on it.

To me, there's 3 categories of things, listed in order of descending evilness:

Exploit,
game mechanics abuse,
game mechanics misuse.

In my mind,

the exploit uses a bug to create an effect that is expressly disallowed within the game,

the abuse uses a game mechanics issue to create an effect that is intended as expressly disallowed in the game, and

the misuse is using a game mechanics characteristic in a way that is not intended by the developers but is not expressly disallowed.

An example of an exploit would be how it's possible to deliberately screw around with and break the Archery moving shot game mechanics and get moving shot to apply to the wrong weapon. It uses a specific group of client actions which, when performed in this way, do not serve a legitimate purpose in the game. The end result is that someone can moving shot with a crossbow, a weapon which does not have moving shot as a real weapon special.

An example of an abuse is the way that it is possible to be mounted while swinging a bola. Bolas were expressly intended to be used while dismounted, but a game mechanics issue is allowing it.

An example of a misuse would be the dart-trapped para breaking box. It's a natural function of taking damage that it breaks you out of being paralyzed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points

Youd think they could make it damage/but not damage from your action that breaks para.

But i guess they cant tag action of casting wand or opening box and resulting damage to oneself as coming from action of self.


I cant even say it.

 

[Guest]

hehe. This is the whole issue. I remember when it was suggested that to fight creatures that can greater or deadly poision you, for you to use a, "Lessor", poision on yourself first, and you can not be poisioned twice. I have no idea if you can still do this or not.

But, how is the average player suppost to KNOW, when he has gone from, "Being clever, or using advancanced tactics", to crossing the invisible line of using a Exploit, that the game allows you to use?

Is there a list some place that says this? "Hail uo player, the following things can be done in the game, but are not allowed, so do not do them, or else".

Is fighting a pet Golem with a %100 poision weapon an Exploit, or good tactics to raise a skill?

Is shooting arrows at things thru fences, "some places you can do this", good tactics, or an exploit?

Is naming you pet, "a polar bear", to trick people into thinking it is a polar bear an attacking it, and going grey, good tactics, or an exploit?

Is getting the leviaton to jump onto land at Bucs Den, instead of having to fight it on a small boat, good tactics, or an exploit.

I can go on forever. Until EA makes a list, and post it on the main login screen, If the game allows it, it must be OK? After all, that is EA's Motto,
IF IT's IN THE GAME, IT's IN THE GAME". hehe

 

[imported_revenant2]

<blockquote><hr>

hehe. This is the whole issue. I remember when it was suggested that to fight creatures that can greater or deadly poision you, for you to use a, "Lessor", poision on yourself first, and you can not be poisioned twice. I have no idea if you can still do this or not.

But, how is the average player suppost to KNOW, when he has gone from, "Being clever, or using advancanced tactics", to crossing the invisible line of using a Exploit, that the game allows you to use?

Is there a list some place that says this? "Hail uo player, the following things can be done in the game, but are not allowed, so do not do them, or else".

Is fighting a pet Golem with a %100 poision weapon an Exploit, or good tactics to raise a skill?

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, I call that a misuse. It's natural to gain skill due to fighting, and natural for golems to not take damage from a poison weapon. The specific act of using a golem as a training tool, however, seems unintended.

It would be an abuse to do it by a means that does not consume arrows, however (this used to work, long ago).

<blockquote><hr>

Is shooting arrows at things thru fences, "some places you can do this", good tactics, or an exploit?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nothing one should be able to get in trouble for. Archery is a distance based attack, like Magery. If they don't want you able to do this, the're responsible for changing the AI or the terrain to disallow it.

<blockquote><hr>

Is naming you pet, "a polar bear", to trick people into thinking it is a polar bear an attacking it, and going grey, good tactics, or an exploit?

[/ QUOTE ]

This can't work properly because your pets highlight based upon your notoriety, it'll be blue or red, whereas wild ones are grey. This is expected to be understood by the UO populace in general.

The person who sees it and chooses to attack it knows that they will flag on someone. The possibility that the owner is standing nearby, invis, is something to consider.

It's none of the above

<blockquote><hr>

Is getting the leviaton to jump onto land at Bucs Den, instead of having to fight it on a small boat, good tactics, or an exploit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't understand that one.

<blockquote><hr>

I can go on forever. Until EA makes a list, and post it on the main login screen, If the game allows it, it must be OK? After all, that is EA's Motto, IF IT's IN THE GAME, IT's IN THE GAME". hehe

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes understanding what's intended vs. not to know which is which. Some of the things are more obvious whereas some are not.

Not all players understand enough of these details in every situation to make a good choice; in fact, it's not their job to understand all of the details.

That's a good reason for why there has to be leeway in the enforcement of rules regarding stuff like this.

The [censored] using the moving shot on their crossbow deserves no mercy, in my book.

 

[imported_Sarphus]

Anyone who cheats in an online game is a loser in my book, so the winner by default is the one that isn't cheating.

 

[Rykus]

I always thought UO was full of losers, this just confirms it.

 

[imported_Lord Kynd]

depends on if the thing your calling a exploit is indeed a exploit and not a easter egg or a intended but not widly used game mechanic.

 

[Sang]

I've played this game for so long, that I've come to this realization: Take advantage of game mechanics b/c they are inherent to the game itself. The likelihood of you getting banned for it is so low, who cares. Besides, like there's anyone left to do anything about it these days.

Exploits that involve "illegal" activities such as duping I do frown upon, but they are usually inherent in the game unless someone uses a 3rd party app, then I consider that a big no-no. But in all honesty, saying and banning are totally different topics as far as UO is concerned, and you will miss out if you think u're being virtuous by not abusing game mechanics. YOU ARE PAYING to play this game, the DEVS should fix it not ban you for something they inherently coded into their game.