Treasures and Tribulations + Soultrapper?

[Pyree]

Players should not be punished for using in game items/mechanics in the way they were intended in order to gain an advantage.

Soul Trappers are intended to be used to take pictures of monsters for use in other events. I can guarantee you they were never intended to be used as a boolean test for whether or not an entity is a monster in the first place.

[Xanthu]

It's bupkis. I just got pictures of all 3 boxes.

Took 14 pictures, wound up with undead killer or attack bonus for all 3 boxes. Two Undeads out of the small box. Tried to open Large Box and failed. Mijined out. Have pics if you want, but currently BG attachments ain't working

Edit: Pics worth 5-7 zeni

[FailureMidgard]

Wow, you didn't read closely at all. The very first thing I said was that I didn't disagree about this being an exploit.

I was saying that the key to determining if something is an exploit or not is if it's using a glitch in game mechanics, not if it's doing something the developers didn't plan for like you originally argued.

Goddamn, someone has a sandy vagina today.

I read what you said exactly, I saw that you said you didn't disagree with that. That being said, you did bring up a completely irrelevant and pointless example.

I don't know what you define as a "glitch", but dictionary.com says "a defect or malfunction in a machine or plan." Personally, I would say that if the developers plan were to have X (a 33.3% chance to get free items, and 66.6% chance to fight a mimic), and you went against that (dat edit, soultrapper, whatever else), it's using a "glitch".

And again, I don't care if people do this, I do care when people try to justify it with inane arguments though. It's cheating, to some degree. So is using windower (I use windower, I'll quit this game before I quit using windower, personally).

To Silenka - I originally said exploit, not calling for a banhammer (I really don't give a shit), but giving people a warning that it is indeed one, and based on recent events, may not want to do that. Also, your analogy is awful, in my opinion. In Golden Salvage, you are aggroing every mimic, and then using in-game mechanics to overcome the encounter. You could also kill them, or sleep them, or use any other game mechanic to deal with them. That is not the same as bypassing the point of the mission (which is to run up to the chest, and see if it's a chest or mimic).

[Silenka]

I just don't think using the soultrapper's mechanics to see whether a chest is a chest or a monster is much different. It's just a different way of going about it (rather than recasting a little blue rat every 30 seconds, which takes about as much effort). Intended use or not, it could have worked and it would have (in my opinion) been well within the user's rights to use the soultrapper that way. A lot of people think anything that wasn't specifically intended by the devs as a use for something should not be used that way at all, ever. I think that way of thinking is really stupid. Honestly, without this LM-17 BS, no one would have even though twice about it, but now people are starting threads on any kind of original mechanic circumvention they can find and going 'Could I be banned for this?'

It's sad when the whole playerbase feels the need to look over its shoulder for Big Brother, constantly in doubt about what could be an exploit and what might not be. Even leveling by AFing with a bunch of SMNs is being called into question. If we start wondering how it's ok to xp or not, what does that say about the direction this game is going? It's just way out of hand...

[Enedin]

You are allowed to try it, and then contact a GM saying you did it (if it worked). Kinda meh though.

[FailureMidgard]

I just don't think using the soultrapper's mechanics to see whether a chest is a chest or a monster is much different. It's just a different way of going about it (rather than recasting a little blue rat every 30 seconds, which takes about as much effort). Intended use or not, it could have worked and it would have (in my opinion) been well within the user's rights to use the soultrapper that way. A lot of people think anything that wasn't specifically intended by the devs as a use for something should not be used that way at all, ever. I think that way of thinking is really stupid. Honestly, without this LM-17 BS, no one would have even though twice about it, but now people are starting threads on any kind of original mechanic circumvention they can find and going 'Could I be banned for this?'

It's sad when the whole playerbase feels the need to look over its shoulder for Big Brother, constantly in doubt about what could be an exploit and what might not be. Even leveling by AFing with a bunch of SMNs is being called into question. If we start wondering how it's ok to xp or not, what does that say about the direction this game is going? It's just way out of hand...

Eh, without the LM-17, people may not be posting it, but the thought would still be there.

And, I'm not sure if what you're saying about something specifically intended by the devs is directed at me, but that's not how I feel at all. I am all for creative use of things, however, when it comes to a fight, BC, etc, bypassing/ignoring the entire point of the fight is different than being creative/thinking about more than what the Devs intended.

[Silenka]

It wasn't directed specifically at you, no ^^

I don't care what people do either as long as it's not using a 3rd party program to blatantly cheat (such as flee/poshack or botclaims). If they figure something out good for them. I think judgment on the BC in question is kind of tough because the intended way to win the fight is all luck based (guess the box), but eh.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

Eh, without the LM-17, people may not be posting it, but the thought would still be there.

And, I'm not sure if what you're saying about something specifically intended by the devs is directed at me, but that's not how I feel at all. I am all for creative use of things, however, when it comes to a fight, BC, etc, bypassing/ignoring the entire point of the fight is different than being creative/thinking about more than what the Devs intended.

Apparently we're not being creative enough or thinking more like a Dev to kill AV.

[FailureMidgard]

It wasn't directed specifically at you, no ^^

I don't care what people do either as long as it's not using a 3rd party program to blatantly cheat (such as flee/poshack or botclaims). If they figure something out good for them. I think judgment on the BC in question is kind of tough because the intended way to win the fight is all luck based (guess the box), but eh.

The other intended way is to fight the mimic and kill it...which is doable with 2 people.

Apparently we're not being creative enough or thinking more like a Dev to kill AV.

That has like nothing to do with anything, but ok?

[Xanthu]

Uh, hey guys

It's bupkis. I just got pictures of all 3 boxes.

Took 14 pictures, wound up with undead killer or attack bonus for all 3 boxes. Two Undeads out of the small box. Tried to open Large Box and failed. Mijined out. Have pics if you want, but currently BG attachments ain't working

Edit: Pics worth 5-7 zeni

It doesn't work. At all. Is the debate even worthwhile?

[FailureMidgard]

Uh, hey guys



It doesn't work. At all. Is the debate even worthwhile?

About as worthwhile as it would have been if it did work. You're talking about arguing on the internet...hypothetical situations aren't really less worthwhile than real ones.

[Silenka]

Worth it because I have nothing better to do. Also because someone has to point out that people are really paranoid about this whole banning situation, and the more people talk about it the more steam it will run out of until we finally go back to not giving a shit.

I can't wait.

[hypnotizd]

Crying exploit on using soultrappers for this would be the equivalent of bitching about SMN's hate mechanics being an exploit in the Ilrusi Atoll mimic assault.

I'm curious, do these mimics behave the same as the Ilrusi Atoll ones or can they draw you in from anywhere in the battlefield?

[ghanima]

I don't know what you define as a "glitch", but dictionary.com says "a defect or malfunction in a machine or plan." Personally, I would say that if the developers plan were to have X (a 33.3% chance to get free items, and 66.6% chance to fight a mimic), and you went against that (dat edit, soultrapper, whatever else), it's using a "glitch".

Pyree is defining glitch according to software bug standards and is correct. A glitch or bug is something unintended and outside of the game. Some bugs can be used as exploits.

The soultrapper taking/not taking pictures in this BC would be an application of using game functionality. It's already been debunked as not working so there's no harm no foul. But if it had worked it would have been an extrapolation of how the soultrapper takes pictures of enemies vs game objects, legit but unintended functionality. It is like ninja taking or mazurka tanking, it is not like the salvage bug.

Also- if soultrappers could take pictures of all targetable game objects and give you soul plates, and then in this BC a non-monster object (the correct treasure chest) did not give you a picture, that would be a bug.

I would say not ban worthy, but these days you have no idea what SE is smoking over there (re: chocobo guy who was banned for spreadsheets/math in chocobo racing) so better safe than sorry.

[FailureMidgard]

Pyree is defining glitch according to software bug standards and is correct. A glitch or bug is something unintended and outside of the game. Some bugs can be used as exploits.

The soultrapper taking/not taking pictures in this BC would be an application of using game functionality. It's already been debunked as not working so there's no harm no foul. But if it had worked it would have been an extrapolation of how the soultrapper takes pictures of enemies vs game objects, legit but unintended functionality. It is like ninja taking or mazurka tanking, it is not like the salvage bug.

Also- if soultrappers could take pictures of all targetable game objects and give you soul plates, and then in this BC a non-monster object (the correct treasure chest) did not give you a picture, that would be a bug.

I would say not ban worthy, but these days you have no idea what SE is smoking over there (re: chocobo guy who was banned for spreadsheets/math in chocobo racing) so better safe than sorry.

This is funny...you go through your attempt to define it, as if it were a truth, and yet, Pyree even said he/she thought that this would have been a glitch, so even you 2 disagree.

"A bug is unintended and outside the game". The salvage dupe bug was not outside the game, all you had to do was drop party. Yes, it was clearly unintended. Hey, guess what, in this situation, it would have been unintended as well. This would have been a "bug".

[Pyree]

All I really wanted people to take away from my posts was that everyone is using the term 'exploit' loosely without any sense of what it means or what conditions must be met to qualify a particular functionality as an exploit.

FailureMidgard, you originally stated that this was an exploit and the only reasoning you applied was that it would be using game mechanics in a way that the developers hadn't planned for. All I did was point out that you're drawing a line between two things that aren't related. Just because you're using something in a way that developers didn't intend does not automatically make it an exploit as you implied.

I gave an obvious example that did actually work, whether you want to admit it or not. Ninjas tanking using utsusemi was not how the developers intended, but it's not considered an exploit. Disbanding an alliance to create three copies of any drop was not how the developers intended, but it is considered an exploit. Two situations that satisfy the same condition that you claimed define an exploit, yet they have different outcomes. This is evidence that your proposed condition is not correct in all situations, which means that it's not a very accurate condition and thus invalid.

[FailureMidgard]

All I really wanted people to take away from my posts was that everyone is using the term 'exploit' loosely without any sense of what it means or what conditions must be met to qualify a particular functionality as an exploit.

FailureMidgard, you originally stated that this was an exploit and the only reasoning you applied was that it would be using game mechanics in a way that the developers hadn't planned for. All I did was point out that you're drawing a line between two things that aren't related. Just because you're using something in a way that developers didn't intend does not automatically make it an exploit as you implied.

I gave an obvious example that did actually work, whether you want to admit it or not. Ninjas tanking using utsusemi was not how the developers intended, but it's not considered an exploit. Disbanding an alliance to create three copies of any drop was not how the developers intended, but it is considered an exploit. Two situations that satisfy the same condition that you claimed define an exploit, yet they have different outcomes. This is evidence that your proposed condition is not correct in all situations, which means that it's not a very accurate condition and thus invalid.

No, you still mistake what I am saying. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. The developers do leave some room for interpretation, in every game.

There are times that something is not intended by the developers, this is vague.
Then there are other times that something is in opposition to what the developers intended, this is an exploit. (I used the term against, before).

Trying to use a color wheel as an example - Assume Red is what is intended by the developers. Orange and Purple would be what is very close to following the rules. Blue and Yellow are where you start to get creative. Green is in total opposition.

I am saying that duplicating items is in total opposition to what was intended by the developers. I am saying that any method that let's you 100% predict which is the safe chest in Trials and Tribulations is in total opposition to what was intended by the developers. It -is- different than just merely not being exactly what they intended. And I feel both are an "exploit"...again, not calling for a banhammer, and I don't care too much outside of the academic discussion of what an exploit is in this game.

[miokomioko]

People who say actions like this theory aren't exploits are simply full of shit. Excuses and blame shifting.