Anyone have Moomba's Trainer?

[LemmingofGlory]

Malach prefers to come out of the woodwork when I mod someone, so I'm fairly certain his purpose here has nothing to do with cheating. In private conversations, he has on two or three occasions taken time to tell me I'm not doing my job correctly. And he just did it again. Malach is upset I moderated jfb392 without first asking why he wanted a trainer, because theoretically he could use it for non-cheating purposes. That's what this business is about.

If you want to continue to take him seriously, that's your call. But allow me to suggest: If he was truly interested in the definition of cheating in D1, wouldn't his arguments would be directed at the more verbose posts instead of Sabra's humorous jab?

-Lemmy

P.S. Malach: Another part of a moderator's job is to bring possible trolls out of the closet.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Another part of a moderator's job is to bring possible trolls out of the closet.

And out of the house. Out of the city. Out of the country. Out of the universe. Banished to the eternal void.

Serves them right :)

--Pete

[Fragbait]

Hi,

To quote Nystul:

In computer games, the fundamental "rules" are layed out by the way the game is coded. And so, this is the central point in determining what qualifies as cheating.

I agree with him on that part completely.
Now:

anything that is not legit is cheating by definition.

is wrong IMO.
Legit, as off legitimate means nothing more than that the action is accepted by the community and complies to established priciples and standarts. As you can see, this 'definition' is subject to certain group dynamics, just like the 'definition' of cheating is.
Let's see: according to Nystul and me, bug-exploiting is not cheating, since the action you take is written in the code. It may well be cheesy, but that's an utterly different boot.
According to you, everything that's not legit is cheating. Since the majority would probably (only weak part in my logics) consider bug-exploiting not legit, this would be cheating by your definition. By ours, it isn't.
See why it ain't so easy to set the border between legitness and cheating? This border has a certain thickness. Another example: trading. While some say that trading cannot be trusted, it's a perfectly acceptable game feature for others.

I suggest that a lurkerlounge definition of legitness and of cheating be made. This definition shall have validity only within these forums, but within these forums decisions on banning / moderating users shall be based upon it.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Lord_Olf]

Hail Pete,

I have an army of Oblivion Knights waiting at my beck and call to take trolls right there - into oblivion. Shall I let them loose? Please, please, pretty please?

Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Nystul]

Legit, as off legitimate means nothing more than that the action is accepted by the community and complies to established priciples and standarts. As you can see, this 'definition' is subject to certain group dynamics, just like the 'definition' of cheating is.

It is supposed to be a universal concept. Guilds can establish their own rules on what they can and cannot do, but this is something completely different. The whole point of "legit" is that everyone on b.net should understand what is and isn't cheating (in the basic gaming sense of the term), and that you can group up with a bunch of people who don't cheat. Now, as things turn out, there is actually a lot of disagreement on various points about whether certain things are legit, or cheating. And so, since there is no "Supreme Legit Court" to make the judgments, people have to agree to disagree, and understand that the usefulness of the term is limited to the common ground that almost everyone does agree on.

Let's see: according to Nystul and me, bug-exploiting is not cheating, since the action you take is written in the code. It may well be cheesy, but that's an utterly different boot.
According to you, everything that's not legit is cheating. Since the majority would probably (only weak part in my logics) consider bug-exploiting not legit, this would be cheating by your definition. By ours, it isn't.


You'll have to speak for yourself only on this one. I say that bug exploitation is cheating, and therefor not legit. Sure, the basic rules of the game are defined by the game code. But if you say something is a bug, you are saying that it is an errror in the game code which does not reflect the game's intended design and specifications. To then say you are exploiting this bug means you are dishonestly taking advantage of a mistake that let's you bypass the game's intended rules.

Of course the problem here is that there are differing opinions on what qualify as bugs, and beyond that there are differing opinions on what qualifies as exploitation. Not only are these blurry lines within the b.net community at large, but they are not items that you will find a consensus on here at the Lurker Lounge either.

I suggest that a lurkerlounge definition of legitness and of cheating be made. This definition shall have validity only within these forums, but within these forums decisions on banning / moderating users shall be based upon it.

Lemming has stated his basic definition of legitness/cheating in this thread. It is something he is consistent on, and in general terms it is consistent with the crude universal ideas of those terms. To try to get consensus on more specific details, however, is like hammering your head against a brick wall. As Thecla's wit suggested at the start of this thread, we had this debate about 7 years ago, kept it going strong for about 4 years, and accomplished very little.

[Fragbait]

Hi Nystul,

But if you say something is a bug, you are saying that it is an errror in the game code which does not reflect the game's intended design and specifications. To then say you are exploiting this bug means you are dishonestly taking advantage of a mistake that let's you bypass the game's intended rules.

Of course the problem here is that there are differing opinions on what qualify as bugs, and beyond that there are differing opinions on what qualifies as exploitation.

Good point. I was just going to ask what would be about the other known 'bugs': The pricelimit, due to which you cannot buy some items in town, or the scary high fireball damage, or the fact that only elixirs of vitality cannot be bought in town.

You'll have to speak for yourself only on this one.

Sorry. Thought you were with me on this one. No offense.

but they are not items that you will find a consensus on here at the Lurker Lounge either.

Not even at the Lurker Lounge? That's kind of sad. After all this is the 'all-legit-community' I thought. At least we should know or agree on what is legit, then.
Oh well.

Oh yeah, and:

people have to agree to disagree

What do you mean by that? I fail to get the point.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Moldran]

Good point. I was just going to ask what would be about the other known 'bugs': The pricelimit, due to which you cannot buy some items in town, or the scary high fireball damage, or the fact that only elixirs of vitality cannot be bought in town.

None of these examples is a bug.

[Fragbait]

Hi Moldran,

That's why I put them in inverted commas.
But they could be considered as bugs by some people, for you never know what is a bug and what isn't just by looking at the code. These were just examples.
Just to show that fireball is 'bugged':

FIREBALL

    Fireball actually does far more damage than listed in the spell book, as a Fireball hit causes initial damage to the target and then splash damage on top of it.

    Splash damage from Fireballs (possibly other spells) is removed when traveling over objects like spikes, chests, etc. Try casting a Fireball into a pack of Snow Witches behind a spike or something, and only the direct damage will be applied; one witch will be hit, the rest won't be scratched.

- from the DSF buglist for Diablo 1.09

Greetings, Fragbait

[Moldran]

For fireball damage I can follow your argumentation somewhat, but the price limit is *obviously* an intended feature, and there is no hint that suggests that vitality elixiers were intended to be sold by Adria.

[Fragbait]

These examples were given to demonstrate that it's not easy to differ between bug and feature sometime. Often it's only one patch that makes a bug out of something previously considered a feature. Surely the price limit is a feature, but do you always have to find hints to qualify something as a bug? What's the sense in not selling vitality elixirs, I ask. This hasn't been brought up 'til now, yet I think this could be considered a bug.

Let me bring forth one or two examples from Diablo II: Was it a bug or a feature that, at some time, cast rate for chain lightning was based on increased attack speed?
Was it a bug or a feature that Whirlwind at some time did rather much damage and was nerfed at another time?
Was it a bug or a feature that in Diablo I the area of effect of Flash was rather odd? Maybe it served to balance the skill?
How can you judge clearly? I think sometimes you can't.

So - crying 'bug exploitation' doesn't help the cause at all as long it's not clear if it concerns a real bug or a feature. And even then, since the user plays a game he bought, and the developers were to stupid/ to lazy to correct a bug/ patch it, then why accuse him of cheating? He doesn't, in the very sense of doing only what's possible through original game code. No doubt it's very cheesy at times, but not IMO cheating.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Moldran]

What's the sense in not selling vitality elixirs, I ask.

This question is irrelevant. Something is not a bug just because it does not make sense.

This hasn't been brought up 'til now, yet I think this could be considered a bug.

There are no facts that could support such a point of view.

Was it a bug or a feature that in Diablo I the area of effect of Flash was rather odd?

If you mean the fact that Flash deals different damage to different target locations, that clearly is a bug.
You are correct in saying that sometimes, one cannot easily decide wether something is a bug or not (I think CC damage may be such a case). But this is only the case with very few potential bugs. In most cases, and in all of your D1 examples except maybe fireball damage, the distinction is pretty clear.

I don't know anything about the game mechanics of D2, so I cannot comment on your other examples.

So - crying 'bug exploitation' doesn't help the cause at all as long it's not clear if it concerns a real bug or a feature. And even then, since the user plays a game he bought, and the developers were to stupid/ to lazy to correct a bug/ patch it, then why accuse him of cheating? He doesn't, in the very sense of doing only what's possible through original game code. No doubt it's very cheesy at times, but not IMO cheating.

This means you consider neither duping items nor god mode cheating in D1. Interesting.

The "using what the game code allows is not cheating" point of view is nonsense. Some games have deliberately built-in "cheat codes". Is using them not cheating ?

[Fragbait]

#1: The question is not irrelevant. The nonsense of bugs is what strikes us first.

#2: Appearently, I don't need facts to support my opinion. All what's necessary is that it can possibly be a bug, to say that it perhaps could be a bug.

#3: Flash is a not so clear bug. What makes it so 'utterly' clear for you? And just to repeat myself: the examples were random and didn't claim to make much sense. They are there only to support my theory that in the eyes of some person that isn't focused only on long established bugs and repeats such buglists mindlessly, other game features could seem to be bugs as well.

#4: I don't know how to dupe or get into god mode. Clear up what you mean, you seem to know the ropes. If these methods can be applied without having to alter code, I stick to my statement.

#5: You say it yourself: These codes have been deliberately built in to enable cheating or perhaps prevent hacking the game as these functions are already in. Since they are built in as 'cheat' functions, of course using them is to be considered cheating. I should have cleared this up by stating "using what the game code allows and doesn't declare as cheating is no cheating".
Think about it. According to you, setting a game difficulty from 'normal' to 'easy' is probably cheating, too.

What's the point of your arguments anyway? I said that IMO, there isn't just 'cheating', often used as a general term and without having thought about it for more than 2 seconds, but also exploiting possibly bugged game mechanics and a lot of other things that are cheesy. Examples would be rushing, twinking or saving/loading to reset the inventory of merchants.
No offense.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Moldran]

#1: The question is not irrelevant. The nonsense of bugs is what strikes us first.

That does not mean that something is a bug just because it does not make alot of sense. Many things don't make much sense in Diablo and are no bugs. There is a difference between a bug and bad game design.

#2: Appearently, I don't need facts to support my opinion. All what's necessary is that it can possibly be a bug, to say that it perhaps could be a bug.

Pretty much anything in the game 'could possibly' be a bug (maybe the whole existance of the sorceror character class is a bug ? Who knows for sure ?). It makes no sense to assume that anything that 'could possibly' be a bug in fact is one.

They are there only to support my theory that in the eyes of some person that isn't focused only on long established bugs and repeats such buglists mindlessly, other game features could seem to be bugs as well.

Noone doubts that humans make errors. But just because something seems to be a bug in the eyes of one particular person, that does not mean it actually is a bug.

#4: I don't know how to dupe or get into god mode. Clear up what you mean, you seem to know the ropes. If these methods can be applied without having to alter code, I stick to my statement.

You can dupe by picking up an item in a certain way. You can get into god mode by casting a certain spell under certain conditions. If you do not consider these things and similiar abuses cheating, the question wether something is cheating or not becomes completely meaningless and you have to coin a new term to describe that abusive way of playing the game. As others have pointed out, the relevance of wether something is cheating or not is that players need a way to define 'is he playing by the same rules as I do ?'.

The term 'cheating' is useful because it differentiates between two very different ways of playing the game. If the term was used as you suggest it, it would only differentiate between two different methods (using bugs/loopholes and using third party programs and the like) of abusive playing.

If you don't label duping cheating, the term 'cheating' becomes completely useless. On the other hand, I don't care if you use a program to dupe or if you do it by abusing a bug in the game. It is both equally cheating to me.

Think about it. According to you, setting a game difficulty from 'normal' to 'easy' is probably cheating, too.

No.
However, if the other players rightfully assume you are playing on 'hard', then it is cheating. Another example: If completing the game on 'easy' and on 'hard' grants different awards and you abuse a loophole in the game to get the rewards for 'hard' by playing on 'easy', then you are cheating.

There is a pretty nice description of the term 'cheating' as used in computer gaming in the German Wikipedia, you should read it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheat

[LemmingofGlory]

Fragbait:
So - crying 'bug exploitation' doesn't help the cause at all as long it's not clear if it concerns a real bug or a feature.

Which is why, at such junctures, the practical applications of labeling a behavior as "cheating" are important to examine.

Lemming
Now, the practical purpose of all this is to determine two things:
(1 -- Multiplayer Aspect) Is this person someone I want to game with?
(2 -- Maintaining Gameplay Standards) If they have engaged in "shady practices," have they done something such that I discount any possible achievement they might make? This is also self-applicable : do I discount my own achievements with a character because I knowingly/unknowingly did some strange stuff?

For instance: Technically, "Zen Harmony" is a bug. However, I don't object to gaming with someone who uses "Zen," and I wouldn't discount the achievements of someone who used a "Zen" setup. Why? Because I think "Zen" is a fair trade-off that doesn't make the game less challenging. It may even make it more challenging because of the opportunity cost of using an item "of Balance" and "of Stability" (neither of which appear with particularly nice prefixes, unless you use Nightscape to obtain "Stability").

-Lemmy

[Fragbait]

Hi,

I tend to agree with what you said.
Could you quickly explain the 'Zen Bug' thingy?
Do you consider save/reload a cheat?

I see that I'm the minority here with my views on bug-exploiting.
Just one last example:

5 friends of me and I started playing Bleifuss.Fun together. This was actually 6 years ago, I think. Of course we long ago stopped, and some of them I don't even see anymore.
Thing is: we competed in that we played each track with each car over and over again, then listed our record times in an excel spreadsheet, then met and compared. Many a time the times differed only in the 1/100 of a second. One time, one of my friends got us beat by 30 seconds. 30 seconds! Naturally, we were all bewildered how he managed to achieve such a phenomenal time, so he showed us. He played and drove the track normally, then apruptly turned left and broke out of the track through what seemed to be a programming error, a gap in the fence. He found himself again on a much latter part of the track, and scored a very fast time. We were buffled, but at the same time amazed, and had nothing better to do than rush home and search for such 'bugs' on every other track, to be on top again. This expanded the time we had fun with the game by approximately 100%.
Now, as from your 'bug exploiting' point of view, this would be cheating. But I hope in this very moment you realize it wasn't.
And that's the way it goes with several a game. I still won't blindfoldedly call every bug exploiter a cheater. It simply is wrong to generalize so much in this aspect (as in many others).
Hope this helps to understand my position.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Moldran]

I think the thing to realize is that there are actually two different concepts attached to the word 'cheating' that are important in this context:
a) The general social meaning
and
b) the specific computer gaming meaning.

The former is usually morally unacceptable, the latter can be morally OK (but in multiplayer environments like battle.net, it is usually not).

The point is that you and your friends basically agreed to play a different game, just like mod players do in Diablo. That's OK, as long as you don't interact with persons who did not agree to do so.
Your behaviour was cheating as in B), but not as in a).
In a worldwide Bleifuss competition, your behaviour would have been cheating both as in a) and as in B)

I agree with Lemming, btw. Not every 'usage' of a gameplay bug should be considered cheating.
Especially not in Diablo, where some gameplay bugs can hardly be avoided with reasonable effort. However, the opposite stance 'no usage of a gameplay bug is cheating' makes even less sense.

[Fragbait]

Hi Moldran.

You seem to have skipped all my arguments concerning 'bugs' that turn into features through patches, and the other way round. Oh well.
Then I will have to argue with you only on your points? Alright.

#1: There may be differences between bad game design and a bug, but at times that's exactly what accounts for a bug: bad, bad game design!

#2: That's right, you read right. Anything odd could possibly be a bug. That's what I sead. Nothing more, nothing less. And you're right again: "Who knows for sure ?".
PS: I didn't assume that everything that's somewhat odd and could possibly be a bug is a bug. No, I didn't.

#3: With that attitude, no bug would have ever been discovered. Not a single, 'cause then no single one would have said: 'Hmm, that's strange. A bug possibly?'. Get what I mean? The 'one particular person' is just the one who discovers it first.

#4: As I get from what you explained, duping and god mode can happen accidently, too. These are just bugs. Not cheats. Exploiters are cheesy loopholers and bug exploiters. Not cheaters. Please see my reply to lemming for more info. And yes, of course it always matters what your personal game ethics are, but as an unbiased 'definition', technically this is not cheating, how bad you may find it.
Again: abusing a bug cannot be cheating, since it actually and very concretely is in the game. It can be used by everybody. It doesn't make a difference if the game designers put it in deliberately or not - this could only be clarified by a new patch that would make it clear that it wasn't intentioned, or a verified statement of one of the game designers that says so.

If you don't label duping cheating, the term 'cheating' becomes completely useless.

No, it doesn't. Here it doesn't matter - the player will be frowned upon whether he cheats or bug exploits all the same. But how can you, refering to only this game (Diablo I), actually say that???

Fact: a loophole/bug that exists in every copy of the source code/ executable of the game allows players to do something odd (perhaps even unethical).

Fact: this loophole/bug is not qualified as a 'cheat' in any way by the game itself, nor is it repaired/ patched by the company later on.

Fact: the loophole/bug is either good or bad for the player.

Fact: this loophole/bug can even be triggered accidently.

Fact: the player who exploits this loophole is not a cheater. He is foolhardy if it is bad for him, and cheesy if it is good.

Let me explain this to you with one last example:

You are a formula 1 driver. Your car fits the reglement.
You started and during 2/3rds of the race, you are in position 3, but can't endanger the leading two.
By accidently driving over the curbs to fast, your front spoiler and your barge boards bend, and you decide to drive to the box to fix that. On your way, however, you realize that these changes don't slow you down, but make you faster! You decide to drive on with them. You manage to drive faster laps and catch up to the leading duo. Eventually you manage to pass them and win the race.
Did you cheat? No. Did you exploit a bug in the aerodynamics? Yes.
Are you the real winner? Yes.

Last b.n.l.: I read the wikipedia 'definition', and it, too, mentiones the phrase: 'that had not been intended by the developer in that way'. So I ask again: Without a patch, a statement, a revision or a declaration in the game that the feature is actually a 'cheat', how should the user know that it wasn't intended that way?
This 'definition' is basically nothing more than a summary of what you've said. There's no use in reading it as long as one doesn't agree on the base of what is talked about.

Final note:
You sum it up pretty well:

or if you do it by abusing a bug in the game. It is both equally cheating to me.

Yes it may very well be. To you. But not to me.
'nuff said.


Greetings, Fragbait

EDIT(24th of July 2004): Don't want to bump this thread again, and I wonder if anyone will ever read this edit. Anyways, I found a good explanation why some use other standarts on cheating than others, which many of you may probably know already, but here it is: Virgil Tibbs - activist legitness.
Bye.

[Tal]

You are a formula 1 driver. Your car fits the reglement.
You started and during 2/3rds of the race, you are in position 3, but can't endanger the leading two.
By accidently driving over the curbs to fast, your front spoiler and your barge boards bend, and you decide to  drive to the box to fix that. On your way, however, you realize that these changes don't slow you down, but make you faster! You decide to drive on with them. You manage to drive faster laps and catch up to the leading duo. Eventually you manage to pass them and win the race.
Did you cheat? No. Did you exploit a bug in the aerodynamics? Yes.
Are you the real winner? Yes.

Ach. Keep the analogies on a keel that everyone can manage. Not all of us are fluent in the rules governing Formula One racers. We don't know for certain that the spoilers and barge boards must fit specific parameters such as width, weight, degree of bend, etc. Without knowing these things I certainly can't state whether it is cheating.

I won't go into the other "bugs" you've brought up because I simply do not know the game well enough to debate the merits of your argument or lack thereof. I will state that at the very least the exploitation of game bugs goes against the spirit of competition.

[Moldran]

You seem to have skipped all my arguments concerning 'bugs' that turn into features through patches, and the other way round. Oh well.

Because I did not disagree with them and I don't think they are important for the question we are discussing. Below, too, I will concentrate on what I think is the key point.

#4: As I get from what you explained, duping and god mode can happen accidently, too. These are just bugs. Not cheats.

Duping happens accidentaly very often, god mode can hardly happen accidentaly.
These bugs become cheats[1] in the moment you abuse them to gain an advantage in the game. The difference between a legit player and a cheater[1] is that a legit will not make use of an item he duped accidentaly.

Again: abusing a bug cannot be cheating, since it actually and very concretely is in the game.

Well, if you apply your personal definition of the word 'cheating', which seems to contain 'nothing that is allowed by the original game code can ever be cheating', then the above statement is correct. But that is not how the rest of the world has agreed to use the word. I wonder where you got that definition from. I never heard it before.
I won't argue that your definition is wrong, because definitions cannot be right or wrong. But they can be more or less useful. I find your definition much less useful than my one. And I am also pretty sure that my one is the commonly accepted one, which adds alot to its usefulness.

Of course, if you insist, you are free to use the word 'cheating' in the Fragbait way only. I doubt it will get you any far, though.

Last b.n.l.: I read the wikipedia 'definition', and it, too, mentiones the phrase: 'that had not been intended by the developer in that way'. So I ask again: Without a patch, a statement, a revision or a declaration in the game that the feature is actually a 'cheat', how should the user know that it wasn't intended that way?

One very useful tool in recognizing what the developers intended is called common sense. For example, common sense tells me that duping was not intended to be possible in D1 and that Flash was not supposed to deal only very low damage to targets in certain positions. Some questions are a bit more tricky and cannot be answered easily by common sense (I think that CC damage and maybe also FB damage fall into this category). Typically, using these 'cases of doubt' is not considered cheating by most players. Another important aspect is the actual effect of the bug on the gameplay, as Lemming has noted.
As a side note, I think one very good aspect of the Wikipedia article is that it does not only speak of 'what the developer intended', but of the 'normaler Spielverlauf' (normal/usual/expected course of the game).

I also think that the Wikipedia article is in line with my definition for a reason: Because that is the commonly accepted definition in computer gaming. If you think it is not, you should start a discussion about it on the Wikipedia page. The fact that noone has done that so far supports my assumption.



1:
Unless otherwise noted, the term 'cheat' was used according to the 'Moldran definition' in this posting ;p

[Fragbait]

No text this time. Sorry.