Should Navy Going Over Land be Considered an Exploit?

Omg z the point is the army doesn't move at boats if there not in their current location. A location which was achieved through an exploit. This changes the course of a game. Its common sense. I'm not saying there actions were smart our they could not have made better decisions. I'm saying the exploit forced the bad decision plus did damage plus forced wasted spendatures. An exploit was used to gain an advantage no matter how you try to spin it.

And I agree that until the engine can say hey this is land you can't traverse it the rules should make the game play as close to the developers intentions. Now if the developers want to give em legs and let em walk so be it but till then it should be treated like every other unintended feature such as long distance repair, patrolling levelers or wall reclaiming.

how are you guys so grieviously unaware of your misinterpretation?

really? walking?

it seems to you that it was uber's intetion that the amazing comeback of the walking ship would be through all of the ships by letting them sail slightly beyond their allowed zone. and oh, without modeled legs. just as a sneak peak preview.

do you realise that your comparison with walking ships is going to hit home with noone here?

The ships goes a millimeter beyond blue "OH GOODNESS, might as well it crossed the whole darn continent, I sure as darn can't see the difference"

you realize what that sounds like?

To me this is merely unfinished pathfinding. To you it's "all naval units are being slumped up with the walking ship as a design choice that I heartily dissagree with! ships should not cross land!"

HOW DO I REECH THIZ KEEEEDS

what kinda duplo elementary language would fit your needs? it's purely cosmetic, no exploit can possibly be drawn from this!

Semantics!

Building in one one lake and moving to another thought to be separated by land is an exploit lol. I'm done, I'm not gonna argue the earth is round with a bunch of people who think its flat lol

Ok JudicatorOfGenocide this applies to you too.

I think this argument about what is an is not an exploit has turned into a purely semantic battle. So ignore the definition. What should we actually do? It doesn't matter how words are defined, actions are invariant.

Doesn't matter chance of it happening again is slim to nill, plus beta drops soon and I imagine issue will be addressed, if not I suggest that when ref or opponent calls the exploit user out on it, said user moves ships back to correct lake or forfits match

Then you're arguing semantics for no point?

By definition, this is an exploit.

A player used a clear bug for their advantage. That is, by definition, an exploit.

As for what we should do, my original proposal was to add it to the Gentleman's Rules where like players shouldn't use the reclaim bug, they shouldn't use these land/water/whatever bridges for their boats to gain access to different lakes.

Until the graphical issue behind coastline collision and pathing is fixed, I support brianpurkiss's proposal for an official amendment to the Gentlemen's rules used in current tournaments, such that movement of naval units across areas that clearly look like land (from a general, graphical, non f11-debugging-mode perspective) should be prohibited. Though I don't know what the formal process for an amendment to the rulebook is, I have attempted to argue my position to raise awareness of what I believe is a bug and an exploit, in hopes to support the addition of such a rule.

That's what I would want the community as a whole do about this. The debate is whether this is considered an exploit, and I have laid my position out, while tasujb has done the same.

On that note, what is the best way to support for an amendment to the gentlemen's rules? Is there a council of elders that meets every first fortnight of a lunar cycle in an underground lair to discuss changes? Because there should be. The secret society of Planetary Annihilation Gentlemen, who change the rules of combat in dark secrecy. Yessss....

edit: and the name of such a shadowy conglomerate shall be... Society for Planetary Annihilation and the Modification of its Main Established Rules. or..."SPAMMER" for short. It's magnificently perfect in every way.

Epic. Even if there is no such meeting, we should set one up.

If you, as a strategist and tactician, cannot, for whatever reason, take the measures necessary to look at your local battlefield and see there's water above what looks like visuals of land, you are incapable of making the decision to protect against naval and therefor deserve to fail based on your incapability. Simply put, if one is incapable of planning based on the battlefield they are fighting on, they will lose.

You can see land under the ocean at the beach. By your logic, doesn't that mean there's no water there? You can see the bottom of your tub, toilet, or sink when they have water in them. Does that mean there's no water?

The game not "clearly" showing that it's water is the actual problem here. Ships capable of moving over it is not. Your interpretation of the visual anomaly in the game is backwards, though it is caused by the same thing.

There is an obvious water line that is visually clear and able to be seen beyond the waves that don't touch the edge of this line.

Normal shore
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/Bgrmystr2/20130922071726423_zpsddec14fe.png
F11 passable shoreline
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/Bgrmystr2/20130922071727708_zpsed7b5770.png
Easy visuals to see shoreline.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a40/Bgrmystr2/20130922071810897_zpsbfa132e9.png

If simply looking at the shore for knowledge is too much work, maybe some of us shouldn't be playing naval maps. Honestly, the game is still alpha and the visuals are also alpha. As-is. Are we really going to squabble because someone didn't educate themselves properly on the map's structure? Seriously? I don't even think this is even capable of being up for debate.

When its patched out you will have been proven wrong and all your points invalid lol.

none of us told you that it was functioning as retail will, what we tried to show you is that it is not a way to cheat or to gain an unfair advantage by any account. Also that in gamer lingo an exploit requires the use of one or several bugs, and that no bugs were present, they were indeed following a fixed red line admitedly not where it should be that more than largely permitted their passage from what looked to you like "one distinct lake to another".

Hence there's no "bug" to speak of, this is called "missing tweaks to the pathfinding borders so as to make them match more with what we see".

Moderator Edit: Keep personal comments out.

Something in a program doesn't work the way its supposed to. Wait... that's not a bug, thats a feature!

Or something like that.

This thread is hillarious.

a bug would be, for example, a breach of the red line, right now it's positioning is just askew, it's cosmetic more than anything.

error or fault ... does this really threaten the program's stability?

Lol nailed it on the head!

There is definitely an error in the program that causes a cosmetic error. My argument is that the intent of a map is what is displayed. If there is missing collision, or askew collision, I maintain that what is shown cosmetically should be respected within a Gentlemen's rules match, rather than the actual collision. After all, the purpose of gentlemen's rules is to correct issues in the alpha by restricting them using official rules, even if the code allows otherwise. This can be in the form of "don't exploit bugs", or in the form of "don't spam wall because their balance is a game-breaking issue".

Even if you don't agree with the above argument, I think you can agree that the issue lies with defining a cosmetic error as a bug. If it's a bug, then I argue that going against the cosmetic error is an exploit.

Thus, my argument is twofold:
1) that a cosmetic, graphical disconnect between what is shown by the engine and what is actually there is a "bug" in the programming.
2) that disrespecting the cosmetic bug is an exploit.

I would use your given definition of a bug: "an error or fault, as in a machine or system, esp in a computer or a computer program" as evidence for argument 1, because there is clearly a cosmetic error, menial and unimportant as you may argue.

My second argument is a personal belief, and is a point of contention. I cannot convince you, and I believe that you are wrong. Similarly, you believe that I am wrong on this, maintaining that doing something in a game is allowed if the back-end code allows it, even if it doesn't seem like it should be possible. I believe that that is an exploit.


I'm not going to argue #2, mostly because it won't do anything. It's a matter of personal philosophy, of whether the mechanics or the aesthetics determines what is considered exploiting something. We have differing opinions, and as much as I disagree with yours, I respect your opinion as a fellow gentleman.

What I will argue is that #1 is true. Because it is, and there is literally no argument against it. However menial or pointless of a bug you think this is, it's still a bug. It's something not behaving as intended -- that is, ships looking like they go over land when they're really going over water. Thus it's an error.

By your reasoning, in a FPS, if there's by game definition a wall there, but visually there isn't a wall there, then that wouldn't be a bug.

We all have stated and know that by pathfinding that was designated as water. But visually, it was not rendered as water. Uber did not intend what was visually land to function programmatically as water. That is by definition, a bug.

Using a bug for an advantage is, by definition, an exploit.

And once again, let me repeat myself for who knows how many times, we know this isn't retail, which is why I'm recommending an amendment to the Gentleman's rules.

And for the at least fourth time, to answer your "now what" question – we're recommending an amendment to the Gentleman's Rules to account for this bug. Just like the Gentleman's Rules account for the reclaim bug and the wall targeting bug.