Is BUG MOD an exploit?

[r_rolo1]

The point, troytheface, is that the oficial expansion is using a mod feature. If it is a cheat to use the mod, because it saves time ( not that time is a big factor in actual gameplay in a turn-based game... atleast hardly anything near a FPS ), it a cheat to use the expansion.... or your def of cheating swings with the furnisher of the feature?

In fact , given your reasoning, you should be using vanilla 1.00.... you know, when vanilla got out it didn't had a combat odds calculator. Since it saves a lot of time figuring which battles are a dead end , everyone that uses it is a cheater.....

 

[troytheface]

not sure that these analogies are correct,
having a bigger monitor is a cheat, Locking myself in my room and unplugging the telephone and door bell is a cheat having glasses ect.

your def of cheating swings with the furnisher of the feature?
BUG is a specific creation geared to make playing BTS easier and by everyone's definition reduces micromanagement.
These other things are not relevant.
Using glasses would be cheating in a test if one wanted to be a fighter pilot, but the comparison to wearing glasses to see is incorrect. The adage "the elite cheat" (attacko) should be amended more accurately to "the elite cheat and then deftly defend it"

 

[r_rolo1]

Let me see if I understand...

-Using Hof trade screen in warlords: 1337 cheat

-Using HoF mod trade screen in BtS: Ok feature

Sorry , but that doesn't make any knid of sense

I suppose that you aren't using 3.17 patch as well ... it has that kind of cheat features, like the hovering in about spy discount and worst enemy. Great time savers, ergo cheat features because:

Time is a strategical factor

and anything that saves time ( in a turn based game ) is a cheat

 

[troytheface]

1. Warlords and its official mechanics is not relevant.
2. Civ/BTS is the game of which we speak, BUG is a user made non official MOD.
that benefits the player.
3. "anything that saves time is a cheat" no. any mod created by a user to
save time or otherwise alter official Civ/BTS gameplay is.

I think a good cheaters walkthrough might be interesting. I suspect 90 percent are regenerated starts. They could start off "and after regenerating 12 times to get this stone i will build quesida warriors"

 

[r_rolo1]

Like I suspected... if BUG bringed the signature of alexman and shaefer, you wouldn't call it a cheat. Strange concept of cheat, if you ask me....

So I suppose that you use the WB in your games extensively as a time saver ( it brings Firaxis imprimatur, so it is not a cheat , right? ) . Removing all the enemy SoD should help a lot in terms of time....

 

[Psyringe]

not sure that these analogies are correct,
having a bigger monitor is a cheat, Locking myself in my room and unplugging the telephone and door bell is a cheat having glasses ect.

Using glasses would be cheating in a test if one wanted to be a fighter pilot, but the comparison to wearing glasses to see is incorrect.

Why? By the definition you gave earlier, using glasses to see would be a clear cheat, because it helps me playing the game. (In that regard, I didn't make "analogies", I pointed out implementations of your criterion. If you say they aren't correct, then point out in which way they don't fit your definition.) If you're not labeling using glasses as a cheat, then you've changed your definition. Into what did you change it?

 

[troytheface]

BUG is created specifically to help a CIV/BTS player.
Glasses were created to assist in improving a person's vision.

good isolation article by the way there ol rolo.
wonder if they'd allow "Attacko's Cheat'n like the Pro's"

 

[Psyringe]

1. Warlords and its official mechanics is not relevant.
2. Civ/BTS is the game of which we speak, BUG is a user made non official MOD.
that benefits the player.
3. "anything that saves time is a cheat" no. any mod created by a user to
save time or otherwise alter official Civ/BTS gameplay is.

Well, I take it that this is your updated definition now.

It runs into two problems:

First, like rolo already pointed out, it judges the very same change differently with regards to who did it. If a modder implements a mouse-over that makes information easier accessible, then it's a cheat. If Firaxis does it, then it isn't.

Second, and imho even more important, you're now saying that *mods* that save time are cheats, but other actions that I could take to save time aren't. Hence, if I were to use a mod that would increase the calculation speed of Civ (and thus save me time), I'd be cheating. However, if I achieved the very same effect by buying a faster PC, I wouldn't cheat by your definition because I wouldn't mod the game. Your criterion labels the very same effect (saving time) as a cheat in one case, and as not-a-cheat in the other case. Hence, it doesn't make much sense as a criterion.

Third, you now bring a further criterion into play: You say that BUG is specifically created to aid players in playing Civ, while glasses aren't. So, when I write a mod that enhances the contrast of my graphics and make things like goody huts more noticeable, then I'd be cheating, because I'd using something specifically created to aid players. However, if I'd use my graphics driver to do the very same thing, it wouldn't be cheating by your definition because the graphics driver wasn't created specifically to aid players playing Civ. Again, the very same effect gets labeled as a cheat in one case and as a non-cheat in the other case, which shows that your criterion isn't working very well.

Do you want to improve it further?

 

[Bleys]

rolo, you should know better than to feed the troll.

Shoo, troy, your BUGGIN us. We arent discussing some form of RTS where time is a factor, or some MMORPG where an advanced interface gives players a competitive edge. This is a (mostly) SP game, where saving time has very little impact on the game itself.

I actually support your idea that time-saving is a competitive advantage in some games, Ogame is a good example of that. You have to pay for an advanced interface known as Commander that saves bundles of time. Heck, I am BANNED from the Ogame.org boards for arguing about it (go look me up, same user name, LOL, its actually kind of funny, I tipped a MOD, had him so angry he said to me, and I quote "I hate you Bleys", LOL), but that is a totally different game, with an enduring universe where saving time IS indeed an advantage that can be measured. This game, being turn-based, it not the same, and the "advantage" of saving time has no impact whatsoever on anyone elses game.

I use BUG, and I dont think its even close to cheating, because of the UG. It stands for Unaltered Gameplay, and includes many features that should already be available in the released version of the game. In fact, as rolo has pointed out, the game is starting to incorporate many features found in MODs. This is no accident, its actually quite brilliant. The gamemakers to have its players doing its work for them, and LIKING it! Absolutely genius marketing.

 

[troytheface]

actually i tried to simplify it as best i could.
Your criterion labels the very same effect (saving time) as a cheat in one case, and as not-a-cheat in the other case
uh, yes. there would be no such thing as cheating unless there are official rules/ gameplay

 

[r_rolo1]

Bleys, troytheface is not your average troll...he's a smart one. I like arguing with him because he defends consistently his points of view

@troytheface

First thank you for the compliment. Second, I would not opose to your Attacko's cheat article per se. Third ( and more important ): why don't you use your brain power for something useful ( like you do in the other forums in here ) instead of trolling ? You're clearly a smart person, and clearly have some knowledge of the game.....

EDIT:

uh, yes. there would be no such thing as cheating unless there are official rules/ gameplay

Reading my BtS manual... no, there is no rule about saving time = cheat .In fact it does not have reference to spy hovering and worst enemy feature.

Seeing Firaxis site... no, no oficial rules about time.

 

[Psyringe]

Your criterion labels the very same effect (saving time) as a cheat in one case, and as not-a-cheat in the other case
uh, yes. there would be no such thing as cheating unless there are official rules/ gameplay

That might be an answer to the first of the three faults of your criterion, but it immediately leads to the question of where these "official rules" are laid out? I haven't seen any official Firaxian statement which labels mods as cheats, have you?

Your reply doesn't even address the second and third fault in your criterion, so do you want to improve your criterion or do you choose to simply realize its faults?

 

[troytheface]

lol, never much respond to ol troll accusations, from what i read about what a troll was (had to look it up) most accusers tend to do exactly that of which they accuse.
(also a fine way of taking the high ground- makes me think to meself- hmmm i never accuse or attack people...think some on here think they own the board or something)
A provoctive or contrary perspective is part of the human condition from what i have seen, and as a method of garnering info it is not without merit- nor does it preclude reading what may one need to hear..ol teach'n method as well.

 

[Psyringe]

rolo, you should know better than to feed the troll.

Actually, in cases like this one, where the troll's arguments are so weak, dispelling them can be a good thing since it helps other people who might read the thread to realize the faults of these arguments even more clearly. I mean, if I'd want to clearly demonstrate why the BUG mod isn't a cheat, I'd probably be tempted to *invent* someone like troy who takes the opposite position and thoroughly shows why it doesn't work all that well.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, troll may be a little too strong for your normal stance in S&T forum, troytheface, and I really like someone that takes his arguement to the bitter end ( it is better for everyone to know if there are flaws in a argument ).

But coming back to the issue...

Your definition of cheating ( as stated in some posts ago ) alone is not logically consistent, as me and Psyringe showed. Or you assume it or you show the rest of the assumptions behind your definition for assertment of logical consistency. That is fair game, right?

 

[troytheface]

faults of these arguments
arguments are so weak
of course they don't say how they are faulted or weak
here is an experiment. walk up to the first person you see and say - there is this game- and one guy uses a mod outside of official programming that makes playing the game easier and the other does not. Does one of them have an advantage? If they were to play a game would the one using the BUG mod be cheating?
Unless they type a half of page explaining why its not- then yes- please read the thread to confirm "weak arguements"

 

[azzaman333]

faults of these arguments
arguments are so weak
of course they don't say how they are faulted or weak
here is an experiment. walk up to the first person you see and say - there is this game- and one guy uses a mod outside of official programming that makes playing the game easier and the other does not. Does one of them have an advantage? If they were to play a game would the one using the BUG mod be cheating?
Unless they type a half of page explaining why its not- then yes- please read the thread to confirm "weak arguements"

Saying that it would make the game easier would be a lie though. All it does is reduce the time taken to calculate each aspect covered in the BUG mod.

 

[r_rolo1]

Pls pll, stop the ad hominem arguments. It will not lead any of us anywhere, will not make any of us wiser or more sage and will atract mod closure of the thread.

And @ last troytheface post.... certainly the one with more Civ expertise would be in advantage, with or without BUG.

 

[Psyringe]

of course they don't say how they are faulted or weak

Well, I did so in post #108, and in previous posts. Your not answering to them is okay, but claiming that I didn't even make them isn't very convincing when they stand a mere couple of posts above this one.

But for your convenience, I'll repeat it. Your (updated) definition of "cheat" has the following problems:

a) Your definition labels the same thing as "cheat" and "non-cheat" depending on whether they are done by Firaxis or by modders - so, if A and B were playing the same game, but A had his game changed by the official patch, and B were using a user-made mod that did exactly the same changes, then (by your definition) A would be cheating and B wouldn't, despite the fact that both changed the same thing to the same effect.

b) Your definition labels the same thing as "cheat" and "non-cheat" depending on whether it's being achieved by a mod or by other means. So, if A had a slower computer than B, and used a mod that did nothing but speed up the game to the same speed that B plays at on his unmodded machine, then - by your definition - A would be cheating and B wouldn't, despite the fact that both play at exactly the same speed.

c) Your definition labels the same thing as "cheat" and "non-cheat" depending on whether it had been achieved by a mod with the *intention* to make playing the game easier. So, if A used a mod that increases the contrast of the colors (so that he can see things like goody huts better), and B achieved the same effect by changing settings in his video driver, then - by your definition - A would be cheating and B wouldn't, despite the fact that they changed the same thing to the same effect.

In conclusion: Your definition of "cheat" leads to the situation that of two people who play under the same conditions, one is seen as a cheater and the other isn't. This clearly isn't a workable definition of cheating.

 

[EmperorFool]

One guy uses a mod outside of official programming that makes playing the game easier and the other does not. Does one of them have an advantage? If they were to play a game would the one using the BUG mod be cheating?

I suspected it before, but this makes it clearer. It looks like you have an unstated assumption that there is a competition involved, and mods are specifically barred by the rules of that competition. Under this assumption, any mod would be considered cheating.

Without such a rule, I don't see how BUG or any mod that doesn't alter the gameplay could be considered cheating. Firaxis coded Civ to allow and in fact encourage mod making. In fact, without any rules governing what mods could do, a mod that gives the player tons of gold or favors his battles -- all capable given the modding system built by Firaxis -- could be considered "not cheating."

Firaxis made a rule that says, "You can give yourself gold by calling CyPlayer.changeGold(x)." Without a competition rule that says, "You may not call CyPlayer.changeGold(x)" or "You may not use a mod. Period." how can calling this function be considered cheating?​

And I think that most of the other posters in this thread have their own unstated assumption that a single-player game is the scenario, and cheating is limited to anything that alters the game mechanics or rules or provides hidden information not normally available in the game.

So I'd say that both sides are correct under their unstated assumptions and incorrect under those of their opponent. In other words, you're both right and wrong, and it really helps to spell out your assumptions, or you're just spittin' in the wind.