Manipulating bugs in the game - ethical or not [poll]

[mr friendly guy]

Lets say you discover a bug in the game which gives you an advantage over the other human players. Its not your fault the game programmers made this bug, and its certainly been reported. Nothing stops the other players from using it against you.

Is it ethical to continue to use this bug to your advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This came about because while playing the Trading card game infinity wars and I accidentally discovered that you can manipulate a way to buff up your creatures. If anyone is interested it works by discarding cards which buffs up a creature which specifically gets stronger for every card you discard. This is all fine and dandy. However the game allows you to take back your move provided the opposing player hasn't completed theirs. It here where I discovered the bug since I had to discard again a second time. Discard the same card multiple times and your creature becomes ridiculously powerful for each time you discarded. This can seriously ruin an opponent's day. Intuitively you would think you only discarded one card (you just took back your move and then decided in the end to do the same move). However the game counts that you have discarded it multiple times.

After discovering this I tried it a few times. Some guys asked me to report it, some congratulated me for discovering a nice bug (I was surprise they still there it after its been reported) and one told me to enjoy my fame (or should that be infamy, although from what I hear I wasn't the first to discover this bug).

Before long I couldn't help myself and created a deck purely around manipulating this bug. If anyone has played TCG like magic the gathering, you would know players find ways to manipulate legal loopholes in the games mechanics for advantage, and to my mind this seems like a similar case although its really skirting the line here.

[Borgholio]

Depends on the situation. Some game companies such as CCP say that once a bug has been reported to them, any further use to gain advantage is an exploit and will result in being banned. This is fair because CCP tends to be on the ball regarding bug and exploit fixes. So in a case like this (even without the threat of being banned), I'd say no it's not ok since it's unfair to other players who may never have the time to discover and use the bug for themselves.

If a game company is too incompetent or uncaring to fix the bug however, then I'd say it's ok since eventually many people will be taking advantage of it and you don't want to be left at a disadvantage compared to everyone else.

[Purple]

Well, speaking solely from a moral standpoint here, and thus quite subjective. Abusing bugs in a competitive computer game is no different than abusing rules in a normal competitive game. That is to say, it depends entirely on how much of a stuck up spoilsport your opponent is. Bottom line is that if you ask me there is a difference between buts and unintended features. And things that do not make the program in question unworkable, unsafe or otherwise inoperable fall into the later category. So there is no shame in using them.

[Civil War Man]

I consider it bad taste to knowingly exploit bugs to gain an advantage over an unsuspecting player, and downright unethical to do it in any kind of ranked competitive play. It's fine if it's a casual game where both players acknowledge the existence of the bugs and agree that it's okay to use them, though.

[Grumman]

Deliberately using this programming error is cheating, pure and simple. It clearly runs contrary to the intent of the game mechanics for the undo button to leave you in a stronger board position than you had to start with, for no cost.

Don't be like Purple. People like Purple ruin games.

[Borgholio]

Deliberately using this programming error is cheating, pure and simple. It clearly runs contrary to the intent of the game mechanics for the undo button to leave you in a stronger board position than you had to start with, for no cost.

Agreed, but what if it's a game where everybody cheats? Do you play "vanilla" out of moral concern, or do you cheat so that everybody is once again on a level playing field and you can have fun again?

[Elheru Aran]

What I would do:

--If it's something like a MMO and you're playing against the computer, who cares?

--If you're playing against people: Try it once or twice. If nobody notices, meh (but don't abuse it). Eventually, they will probably notice. Ask if they're okay with that move, and if not, let it stand but don't do it again.

[Grumman]

Agreed, but what if it's a game where everybody cheats? Do you play "vanilla" out of moral concern, or do you cheat so that everybody is once again on a level playing field and you can have fun again?

It's a TCG with multiple factions. It's only a level playing field if everybody stops using the factions that don't use the discard-for-power mechanic, or faction cards that get in the way of shoving more bug exploitation into your deck. And even if that happens you've still reduced a turn-based game to an APM clickfest, where whoever exploits the bug the most times before somebody ends the turn wins.

Tribes is an example of a game where everybody cheated, but that cheat was (as far as I'm aware) available to every player, and added depth to the gameplay, by turning an ordinary FPS into a game where height isn't just a vantage point but also speed.

[Borgholio]

Agreed, but what if it's a game where everybody cheats? Do you play "vanilla" out of moral concern, or do you cheat so that everybody is once again on a level playing field and you can have fun again?

It's a TCG with multiple factions. It's only a level playing field if everybody stops using the factions that don't use the discard-for-power mechanic, or faction cards that get in the way of shoving more bug exploitation into your deck. And even if that happens you've still reduced a turn-based game to an APM clickfest, where whoever exploits the bug the most times before somebody ends the turn wins.

So since the game is win or lose based on cheating, I'd say if you want to continue to play then you should cheat. The only other option is to quit entirely.

[Elheru Aran]

Tribes is an example of a game where everybody cheated, but that cheat was (as far as I'm aware) available to every player, and added depth to the gameplay, by turning an ordinary FPS into a game where height isn't just a vantage point but also speed.

Are you talking about the 'skiing' mechanic? IIRC that was only a 'cheat' in the first game, it was turned into a straight-up game mechanic after that thanks to the extra dimension it gave the game.

[TheFeniX]

Agreed, but what if it's a game where everybody cheats? Do you play "vanilla" out of moral concern, or do you cheat so that everybody is once again on a level playing field and you can have fun again?

Then you get dumb shit like everyone running a trainer in Diablo, everyone running Glitch-mechs in Chromehounds, who can get the first teleport uppercut as Smoke in MK3 (though that was imbalance more than glitching, but competitive games almost always banned Smoke) and other shit that distills the gameplay into "who can cheat the most."

I can't wait until the "bunnyhoping" discussion gets started.

[Borgholio]

It's been years since I've played Quake, but wasn't bunnyhoping simply a tactic to make yourself harder to hit? I don't recall it being an exploit of a bug or anything like that.

[Grumman]

Tribes is an example of a game where everybody cheated, but that cheat was (as far as I'm aware) available to every player, and added depth to the gameplay, by turning an ordinary FPS into a game where height isn't just a vantage point but also speed.

Are you talking about the 'skiing' mechanic? IIRC that was only a 'cheat' in the first game, it was turned into a straight-up game mechanic after that thanks to the extra dimension it gave the game.

Yes, it was skiing that I was referring to. Skiing is what made Tribes what it is - nobody's going to hold Infinity Wars up as the moment undo cycling became the keystone of the franchise, because it would be a fundamentally shitty mechanic even if it was deliberate.

[TheFeniX]

It's been years since I've played Quake, but wasn't bunnyhoping simply a tactic to make yourself harder to hit? I don't recall it being an exploit of a bug or anything like that.

I need to learn to keep my stupid mouth shut.

Bunnyhopping is a bug in the Quake engine that allows a character move faster than the developer originally intended. It's the same thing as wall-strafing and is most definitely a bug.

The problem is it makes the game look stupid as everyone bounces around like a moron, but more importantly it means you can get to a location before someone who can't bunnyhop. This has the obvious advantages of getting to upgrades or advantageous positions before anyone else realistically can. A player who can bunny-hop has a decided advantage over someone who can't.

That everyone can do it doesn't matter. The problem is developers started balancing around a bug, yet there's nothing intuitive about learning it. Same shit with Wave-dashing in Smash Bros, which Nintendo removed in later games to the delicious sound of exploiter's crying. It's a barrier to entry that you have to take time out, not playing the actual game, to learn.

I ran into this mainly in Natural Selection. Yes, I can bunny-hop: quite well actually. But it was a mainstay of "super-1337" players as they use their Skulk like a free-roaming rocket when the original design was for them to be ambushers. This then lead to the developers lowering Skulk armor and base movement speed because people who could bunny-hop would murder the shit out of you, which then made the nerfs leave new players as free kills for Marines.

[Purple]

That everyone can do it doesn't matter. The problem is developers started balancing around a bug, yet there's nothing intuitive about learning it. Same shit with Wave-dashing in Smash Bros, which Nintendo removed in later games to the delicious sound of exploiter's crying. It's a barrier to entry that you have to take time out, not playing the actual game, to learn.

I ran into this mainly in Natural Selection. Yes, I can bunny-hop: quite well actually. But it was a mainstay of "super-1337" players as they use their Skulk like a free-roaming rocket when the original design was for them to be ambushers. This then lead to the developers lowering Skulk armor and base movement speed because people who could bunny-hop would murder the shit out of you, which then made the nerfs leave new players as free kills for Marines.

This is complicated to put into words as I have no practical experience with the mechanic you are talking about but to me it sounds like a perfectly legitimate thing as opposed to something to be argued against. Non intuitive mechanics that take effort to learn but reward those that learn them with superiority over the rest are not bad but good and should be encouraged. I mean, purely from a neutral standpoint I honestly can not see what could possibly be bad about having people be rewarded for taking the time and effort to get good at something?
If anything, it sounds to me like the devs there dropped the ball when they started catering to the casual crowd and balancing the game against said mechanic rather than simply publishing a statement to the effect of: "If you keep being beaten by players that practice more. Than that means you ain't practicing enough.".

[Borgholio]

Bunnyhopping is a bug in the Quake engine that allows a character move faster than the developer originally intended. It's the same thing as wall-strafing and is most definitely a bug.

Huh...something new every day. I started playing when it first came out and I never realized it was actually a bug. I always did it to avoid being hit and never really noticed an increase in my speed.

The problem is it makes the game look stupid as everyone bounces around like a moron

No argument there.

you can get to a location before someone who can't bunnyhop.

What about rocket-jumping? Would you consider that the same as bunnyhopping or just a clever use of an intended game mechanic?

[TheFeniX]

This is complicated to put into words as I have no practical experience with the mechanic you are talking about but to me it sounds like a perfectly legitimate thing as opposed to something to be argued against. Non intuitive mechanics that take effort to learn but reward those that learn them with superiority over the rest are not bad but good and should be encouraged. I mean, purely from a neutral standpoint I honestly can not see what could possibly be bad about having people be rewarded for taking the time and effort to get good at something?

You ever play Counter-Strike back when bunny-hoping was a thing? Nothing more tacti-cool than 16 guys bouncing down a road with their knives out.

Same thing with Dolphin Diving in BF2: going prone would instantly set your reticule to 100% accuracy when the game was balanced around movement making you less accurate. Normally, you had to go to a knee, then go prone, thus making it take a second or so. But if you were airborne, you could immediately go prone. Queue people sprinting down the battlefield, seeing an enemy, jumping, then going prone in mid-air to "snipe" people with a SAW.

Did it take skill? Yes. Did it look dumb as balls? Double yes.

If anything, it sounds to me like the devs there dropped the ball when they started catering to the casual crowd and balancing the game against said mechanic rather than simply publishing a statement to the effect of: "If you keep being beaten by players that practice more. Than that means you ain't practicing enough.".

No, they balanced for the mechanic. This isn't a case of "shoot better." This is a case of a barrier to entry created by an engine exploit you actually have to research online, because no developer who supports it bothers explaining it, in order to even learn the basics: that's piss-poor game design. Unreal Tournament went the same route with all the crazy jumping, but including a dodge mechanic through WASD double-presses. It managed to take both skill to master and be intuitive.

And, other skills requiring practice like "Aiming better" don't require macros or engine exploits to accomplish.

Huh...something new every day. I started playing when it first came out and I never realized it was actually a bug. I always did it to avoid being hit and never really noticed an increase in my speed.

Were you bunny-hoping or just bouncing around using the space-bar, usually termed "crack-jumping?"

What about rocket-jumping? Would you consider that the same as bunnyhopping or just a clever use of an intended game mechanic?

Rocket jumping isn't a physics exploit and also has gain vs loss system built into it: you're sacrificing health for mobility. Bunny-hoping does not have such a system.

[Borgholio]

Were you bunny-hoping or just bouncing around using the space-bar, usually termed "crack-jumping?"

Probably crack jumping.

[Mr Bean]

Were you bunny-hoping or just bouncing around using the space-bar, usually termed "crack-jumping?"

Probably crack jumping.

There is three different kinds of bunny hopping. One of which is simply constant jumping in some games changed the hitbox while not affecting accuracy thus jumping constantly had an upside. There was Source engine games like CS Source where it was possible to get up to 88 mph using crouch jump strafing which made you less accurate but super fast great for running to and away from danger. Then there is UT style jumping because a jump character is a faster character same as games where a front roll is slightly faster than running meant that jumping everywhere was simply the fastest movement speed and thus widespread.

[TheFeniX]

Were you bunny-hoping or just bouncing around using the space-bar, usually termed "crack-jumping?"

Probably crack jumping.

Crack Jumping is also an exploit, but a much more understandable one mainly because anyone with a space-bar can do it. In game with terrible net-code, you can use it to make you hitbox lag behind (below/above, whatever) your model, but I doubt that is your intention.

I'm heavily biased against bunny-hoping (obviously) but that's mainly because of taking a lot of shit from so called "secret-club" morons over the years. I avoided Quake for the most part as a UT guy, so BHing was never a big deal to me. But in other Quake engine games, I would constantly be abused by players who could bunny-hop for explaining to people how it's done. "Don't teach noobs our skills." It wasn't that they wanted to increase the average skill-ceiling of the game: they wanted an advantage. And since you can't just watch someone bunny-hop and figure it out yourself (because it's not intuitive), it was something they could shove in a player's face to show just how awesome they were, unlike Dolphin Diving which you can figure it out just by seeing it in action, or weapon swapping to bypass reload animations, etc.

It finally reached a head when a poster on the Natural Selection Official forums posted a detailed video on how to bunny-hop and wanted to see it added as a tutorial for the game. The competitive players and the play-testers flooded him with posts that boiled down to "if they don't know how to do it, don't teach them." They don't care about anything other than the advantages they learned and were entitled to and everyone else can go get fucked.

[Alyeska]

I feel old. Bunny hopping takes me back to the original Quake. It wasn't about speed. It was purely a means to avoid getting hit. Randomly jumping threw off your enemies aim. The original Half-Life Source Gold engine had bunny hopping as a speed booster. BF2 was about going prone. Developers started to learn various ways to reduce the hopping. But one thing pissed me off in BF2. They hadn't yet fixed bunny hopping, but they added a bounce to grenades from grenade launchers. One of the primary methods for killing bunny hoppers was just smoke them with an area effect weapon. And DICE nerfed the grenade launcher before they addressed dolphin diving.

The entitlement angle also brings me back. In the original Quake, anyone running 3d acceleration had improved effects in the game. One of them was the ability to see through the surface of the water. This was immensely valuable on some maps because you could spot and kill people as they were swimming. Someone developed a water hack which allowed non-3d accelerated players to also see through the surface of the water to match what the accelerated gamers were getting. The people with video cards through a fucking fit. They "earned" their ability through buying a video card and they wanted players banned for having water hacks. Anything to level the playing field was not fair.

[Purple]

You ever play Counter-Strike back when bunny-hoping was a thing? Nothing more tacti-cool than 16 guys bouncing down a road with their knives out.

I find that endearing actually.

Same thing with Dolphin Diving in BF2: going prone would instantly set your reticule to 100% accuracy when the game was balanced around movement making you less accurate. Normally, you had to go to a knee, then go prone, thus making it take a second or so. But if you were airborne, you could immediately go prone. Queue people sprinting down the battlefield, seeing an enemy, jumping, then going prone in mid-air to "snipe" people with a SAW.

Newer plaid BF2. But I do not see anything objectionable about this.

Did it take skill? Yes. Did it look dumb as balls? Double yes.

Why is looks so important to you? Maybe it's just because I like Dwarf Fortress and thus my graphics pack of choice looks like this. But frankly I do not see your point one bit.

No, they balanced for the mechanic. This isn't a case of "shoot better." This is a case of a barrier to entry created by an engine exploit you actually have to research online, because no developer who supports it bothers explaining it, in order to even learn the basics: that's piss-poor game design.

No, I really do not see that as a case of bad game design. It's a case of bad documentation if anything. Although if we are going to talk about bad documentation and software I could tell you stories...

Unreal Tournament went the same route with all the crazy jumping, but including a dodge mechanic through WASD double-presses. It managed to take both skill to master and be intuitive.

Why does a skill being intuitive matter? A lot of skills in life are not intuitive and yet we routinely master them.

And, other skills requiring practice like "Aiming better" don't require macros or engine exploits to accomplish.

How is one different from the other just because of the feature it relies on is intended as opposed to unintended? Both are skills that need mastering. And both produce results in the end. You seem to be using some sort of frankly confusing morality based on the intent of the original creator as opposed to reality of the situation. Kind of sounds like those people who want to ban recreational ownership and use of firearms based on the fact that the things were originally designed to kill people.

Rocket jumping isn't a physics exploit and also has gain vs loss system built into it: you're sacrificing health for mobility. Bunny-hoping does not have such a system.

Walking around does not trade anything for mobility. Is that too a flawed system?


Seriously, the more I talk with you the more it seems that you basically hate this bunny hopping thing because you think it looks bad. And are trying to assemble a morality argument to justify that.

[TheFeniX]

I find that endearing actually.

A whole lot of people didn't, leading to valve doing whatever they could to break it.

Newer plaid BF2. But I do not see anything objectionable about this.

Then you're obviously qualified to work as a dev for EA. But as easy as it would be just to make jabs, it had the unintended side-effect completely changing the way the game was played, and not in a good way.

Why is looks so important to you? Maybe it's just because I like Dwarf Fortress and thus my graphics pack of choice looks like this. But frankly I do not see your point one bit.

So, single-player world-builders are comparable to competitive multi-player games? Also, who the fuck is talking about graphics?

No, I really do not see that as a case of bad game design. It's a case of bad documentation if anything. Although if we are going to talk about bad documentation and software I could tell you stories...

That you don't consider balancing around bugs as bad design, instead of fixing them or finding an intuitive way to include them, is your problem, not mine.

Why does a skill being intuitive matter? A lot of skills in life are not intuitive and yet we routinely master them.

I'm sorry, video games are real life now? If you honestly think well-made products are not intuitive to use and master, that is once again, a problem on your part.

How is one different from the other just because of the feature it relies on is intended as opposed to unintended? Both are skills that need mastering. And both produce results in the end. You seem to be using some sort of frankly confusing morality based on the intent of the original creator as opposed to reality of the situation. Kind of sounds like those people who want to ban recreational ownership and use of firearms based on the fact that the things were originally designed to kill people.

I doubt someone intended for people to be able to use slight of hand to deal themselves stacked hands in card-games. But hey, we all need to up our skills, right?

Walking around does not trade anything for mobility. Is that too a flawed system?

Ha! Yes, let's compare walking, which I'm pretty sure no one designed (unless my preacher turns out to be right, then I really don't care because I need to get my ass in church) to a competitive computer game. Even still, there are comparisons I could make, but I'm not going to because this is just getting weird.

Seriously, the more I talk with you the more it seems that you basically hate this bunny hopping thing because you think it looks bad. And are trying to assemble a morality argument to justify that.

The more I talk with you, it's pretty obvious you really don't play anything competitive. Look, I like Dorf Fortress as much as the next guy, but maurading packs of cats aren't going to fuck up anyone else's enjoyment, so stick to Single-player.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

If it's multiplayer, especially competitive multiplayer, then the described situation is textbook exploiting, a specific type of cheating up there alongside (albeit perhaps slightly less severe than) wallhacking, aimbotting, maphacking, duping (itself often a type of exploit), and so on. It earns you no points, and any decent server admin would kick or ban you for continued use of the bug until such time as the game is patched to remove the exploit in question.

If it's singleplayer, then go nuts. Computer opponents invariably cheat their balls off anyway.


Edit: An analogy.

You do business with Acme Bank. In the course of your usual deposits and withdrawals to and from your accounts, you discover a glitch in their ATMs that allows you to withdraw 10% more money than your account otherwise has, or deposit 10% more money into your account than you actually have on you. This extra money comes out of thin air, and is "free." Is it okay to continue to make use of this erroneous functionality? After all, it's not like you deliberately broke into the vault and physically stole the money, so it's totally not real stealing. You're just making use of what was put in front of you, right?

This is the same dynamic between an exploiter and an aimbotter. The aimbotter breaks into the vault and robs the bank deliberately, the exploiter "merely" steals because it's convenient, but is still stealing.

[Purple]

A whole lot of people didn't, leading to valve doing whatever they could to break it.

My point which I guess I should have spelled out for you is that different people see visual effects relating to an action differently. And that any arguments you want to make that boil down to: "It looks dumb." are completely invalid because they are based on personal taste.

Then you're obviously qualified to work as a dev for EA.

Probably not. I might have knowledge and education when it comes to software engineering but I will admit not to have the on hands experience required to work for a major video game publisher yet.

But as easy as it would be just to make jabs, it had the unintended side-effect completely changing the way the game was played, and not in a good way.

The only part of this I am arguing against, and I am doing this consistently is the one I just underlined. So if you want to make arguments make some addressing that single major point. Because as I have said already you have not presented anything so far that would convince me in that regard.

So, single-player world-builders are comparable to competitive multi-player games? Also, who the fuck is talking about graphics?

And here we go again. Once again, for the ones that can't take a metaphor. Please refer to my answer, point #1. I feel no need to spell things out twice.

That you don't consider balancing around bugs as bad design, instead of fixing them or finding an intuitive way to include them, is your problem, not mine.

Your problem is that you have this dubious view of programing where it's not the result that counts but the intent behind it. Something with as a programer I can't help but laugh at. A bug that has a positive net result is superior to a feature that sucks. That's just how it is.

So any arguments you make in this regard boil down to you arguing that intent > result. And I find this to be logically inconsistent with reality.

I'm sorry, video games are real life now?

Yes, yes they are. Video games, board games, driving a car, sex. These are all practices people partake in during their real lives.

If you honestly think well-made products are not intuitive to use and master, that is once again, a problem on your part.

There are plenty of products we consider "well made" that are quite unintuitive to a lot of people. You only need to go as far as chopsticks to figure that one out. Or if you want something more western the god dam office ribbon.

The obvious problem you see is that intuitiveness is not a binary variable. Nor is it one whose value can be measured on an absolute scale. How intuitive a form of behavior is depends heavily on the user and both his personal preferences and past experiences. It's not just a measure of how quickly you can figure out that something can be done. But how quickly and easily you can translate experiences from one medium to the other. Someone used to hopping in CS might not be confused by hopping in Quake and would probably even feel it is normal behavior.

I doubt someone intended for people to be able to use slight of hand to deal themselves stacked hands in card-games. But hey, we all need to up our skills, right?

Quite. I have nothing good to say about people who refuse to train in order to get better but instead demand that everyone else be prevented from using skills they can't master.

[quoteHa! Yes, let's compare walking, which I'm pretty sure no one designed (unless my preacher turns out to be right, then I really don't care because I need to get my ass in church) to a competitive computer game. Even still, there are comparisons I could make, but I'm not going to because this is just getting weird.[/quote]
And here I was thinking you were smart enough to realize that we were talking in the context of computer games. Because characters there don't ever walk anywhere or anything.

And the comparison stands because something as simple as that completely destroys your point that for a mechanic to be good it has to offer a tradeoff.

he more I talk with you, it's pretty obvious you really don't play anything competitive.

I used to play CS a lot back in the day. And I do play Quake III multiplayer, CIV 4 multiplayer, a bunch of MMO's etc. But yea, I have newer entered an actual registered competitive gaming league or anything like that.


Still, it seems to me that your only desire is to eradicate behavior which you think is unsightly. Because that is the only real argument you have presented. Everything else is just a bunch of appeals to intent and well nothing smart really. You remind me of the people won run CS servers and randomly ban weapons they dislike because "hur! it ruinz teh game!"