The new method to make solo kill enraged klaus without damage become possibility [No film , Show the method only]

[HamBatter]

It's possible to avoid the enraged lunge by positioning the sack in between you and Klaus or with better than good timing, no lureplant needed. Either way it's a test of how automated you can get with your actions, just that you can take it easy if you use 2 obstacles.

[DVGMedia]

i think its easier just to have the stage hand set up there since it does the same thing but instead you dont have to worry about accidentally hitting the lure plant

 

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

Lureplants are awfully powerful for exploits for what they are. It would probably be a good idea for having them be treated as walls, where a boss would either walk around, attack them along the way, or may be even jump over them. Fuelweaver in particular. But I bet there's not going to be anything done at this point.

[Rotintin]

Did a developer ever come out and say the way lure plants are "abused" is unintentional, or is this just a common assumption?

[Whoneedspacee]

1 hour ago, Rotintin said:

Did a developer ever come out and say the way lure plants are "abused" is unintentional, or is this just a common assumption?

It’s clearly abuse with the way it’s used to cheese these bosses, they’re just generally too lazy to fix things like this.

[spideswine]

15 hours ago, Whoneedspacee said:

It’s clearly abuse with the way it’s used to cheese these bosses, they’re just generally too lazy to fix things like this.

For fuelweaver yeah(though arguably the abuse is somewhat new, so they might fix it maybe).

For enraged klaus, not really.

[Whoneedspacee]

56 minutes ago, spideswine said:

For fuelweaver yeah(though arguably the abuse is somewhat new, so they might fix it maybe).

For enraged klaus, not really.

The fuelweaver abuse is not new? Also if it’s abuse for fuelweaver how the hell is it not for klaus?

[Sinister_Fang]

1 hour ago, spideswine said:

For fuelweaver yeah(though arguably the abuse is somewhat new, so they might fix it maybe).

For enraged klaus, not really.

Could you elaborate? Both of them are capable of smashing structures in their way. I don't see how this could be considered an exploit for one of them, and not both.

[Lokoluna]

Guys point is, Wolf gang is an exploit, 2x damage is crazy, lets remove it from the game, exploit confirmed.

[spideswine]

On 3/24/2018 at 7:54 PM, Whoneedspacee said:

The fuelweaver abuse is not new? Also if it’s abuse for fuelweaver how the hell is it not for klaus?

Well fuelweaver himself is "sorta" new, but cheesing him with lureplants took a while to become widespread, so it's sorta new.

As to why it's an abuse to fuelweaver and not for klaus: It makes the fuelweaver fight a lot easier, it doesn't do that for the klaus fight.

On 3/24/2018 at 8:42 PM, Sinister_Fang said:

Could you elaborate? Both of them are capable of smashing structures in their way. I don't see how this could be considered an exploit for one of them, and not both.

An exploit isn't necessarily something working as not intended,as I've said some bugs often becomes features.

The main difference is that lureplant abuse makes the fuelweaver fight a lot easier than regularly fighting him, and also completely trivializes the fight(you just stand there hitting him), the klaus lureplant use isn't very useful, you're still better off fighting regular klaus than cheesing enraged klaus.

[CarlZalph]

Sorry, can't directly link to my post since old forum bug that eats indexing.

From https://forums.kleientertainment.com/topic/77496-caboodle-of-know-hows/?page=2

Quote

Definitions vary from player to player, though I tend to follow that:

Tactic - A series of actions planned and executed to have a specific desired outcome; repeatable.

Effort - Skill or time invested into accomplishing a task.

Cheese - Using a tactic with minimal effort to have a relatively larger payoff.

Bug - Unintended behaviour which requires a fix from the developer.

Exploit - Using a bug or tactic to one's advantage which may or may not result in a cheese.

Cheating - Using a bug or external means to influence the outcome of the in-game simulation; using two hand items at once/console/memory editors/etc.

Perhaps these definitions could be used for clarity, as there seems to be a difference in interpretation.

 

For example, the use of a meatbulb/stagehand/sack to block bosses:

Tactically it's used to prohibit the free motion of the bosses and gives you an easier time repeating the hit-and-run tactic.

Effort is low since the skill is placing a structure, and the time is negligible to setup.

Cheese is here for those who couldn't normally defeat Klaus when Klaus is free to move.  It removes a dimension from the combat situation.

Bug.  Clearly unintended, as bosses aren't supposed to adhere to being blocked by things in their way.

Exploitative.  It's being used, and most definitely a bug.

Cheating.  I would classify it as such, since it is using a bug that changes how the boss' AI functions which is apart of the in-game simulation.  Minor infraction at most, since there are more efficient methods in dealing with Klaus.

[spideswine]

2 hours ago, CarlZalph said:

Perhaps these definitions could be used for clarity, as there seems to be a difference in interpretation.

They don't entirely, you redefine some words while still playing on their (negative) connotations, specifically for the word exploit.

1) Bug: your definition here is fine, but you don't apply it properly, specifically "which requires a fix from the developer.", I really don't think that the way lureplants are used against klaus(in contrast to fuelweaver) requires a fix from the developer, in fact it probably doesn't.

2) Exploit: needless to say, it carries a very negative connotation, but you don't define it as such. Your definition is neutral yet when you/others use it you/others imply something negative, even though you don't define it as such.

3) Your definition of cheating and you seeing it as cheating are rather contradictory, bosses destroy structures built by the player, the lureplant isn't a structure built by the player. Your definition of cheating is actually very strict(which is fine imo, in contrast to your definition of an exploit.) and yet you are very liberal when applying it to this situation.

2 hours ago, CarlZalph said:

Tactically it's used to prohibit the free motion of the bosses and gives you an easier time repeating the hit-and-run tactic.

Except it's of very little use against klaus due to the fact deer have a tendency to put things on fire, and the limited utility it provides. It is very useful against enraged klaus, but fighting enraged klaus isn't useful to begin with. Being useful for something useless is not an exploit.

(fuelweaver cheese is definitely an exploit though, and I mean that using the more common definition/s of the word)

[CarlZalph]

1 hour ago, spideswine said:

They don't entirely, you redefine some words while still playing on their (negative) connotations, specifically for the word exploit.

1) Bug: your definition here is fine, but you don't apply it properly, specifically "which requires a fix from the developer.", I really don't think that the way lureplants are used against klaus(in contrast to fuelweaver) requires a fix from the developer, in fact it probably doesn't.

2) Exploit: needless to say, it carries a very negative connotation, but you don't define it as such. Your definition is neutral yet when you/others use it you/others imply something negative, even though you don't define it as such.

3) Your definition of cheating and you seeing it as cheating are rather contradictory, bosses destroy structures built by the player, the lureplant isn't a structure built by the player. Your definition of cheating is actually very strict(which is fine imo, in contrast to your definition of an exploit.) and yet you are very liberal when applying it to this situation.

Except it's of very little use against klaus due to the fact deer have a tendency to put things on fire, and the limited utility it provides. It is very useful against enraged klaus, but fighting enraged klaus isn't useful to begin with. Being useful for something useless is not an exploit.

(fuelweaver cheese is definitely an exploit though, and I mean that using the more common definition/s of the word)

The part about requiring a fix is to make it no longer a bug.  It's something that's both unintentional from the devs and unavoidable when it happens; it has to be fixed by the devs either with a code change or an adoption of the 'bug' as a new 'feature'- it relies on the intention of the developers and how they want it to happen.

To exploit something nowadays seems to have a negative connotation, and I fully intend to disregard the deviation of its original meaning. To exploit isn't a bad thing.  I exploit the fact that the definition of exploit is neither good nor bad in my definitions in the context of a game to make it more generalized.

Lureplants are placed by the player, and I'm not being contradictory at all.  In fact, I'm being quite strict to my initial defines such that this situation with the exploitation of the bug is cheating in this regard.  It's a minor thing, but not the main focus of my post.
Whether or not it's useful doesn't change the nature of it.  A is A.  A bug is a bug.

 

In any case, these were merely suggestions for definitions as the parties here in this thread are all using their own forms with no set standards and I'm seeing loops being made which benefit no one.

[spideswine]

26 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

The part about requiring a fix is to make it no longer a bug.  It's something that's both unintentional from the devs and unavoidable when it happens; it has to be fixed by the devs either with a code change or an adoption of the 'bug' as a new 'feature'- it relies on the intention of the developers and how they want it to happen.

But developers often intend for the unintended. They want people to try and innovate, not to strictly use things in the way the developers imagined those things to be used. If the developers don't like the way something unintended turns out they may change that, alternatively they may not like it but don't think it's enough of a priority to be fixed, or it just falls under the category of a bug turned feature.

Hence why the part stating "requires a fix is important", something may be unintended but the result overall positive, hence not requiring a fix. It may also be unintended, with a negative result, but not enough of a priority to actually be fixed, it still requires a fix but it won't get one. According to your definition the latter is a bug whereas the former isn't, which is fitting, as bugfixes are meant to make the game better, not worse.

26 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

To exploit something nowadays seems to have a negative connotation, and I fully intend to disregard the deviation of its original meaning. To exploit isn't a bad thing.  I exploit the fact that the definition of exploit is neither good nor bad in my definitions in the context of a game to make it more generalized.

And it just ends up making everything more confusing, as your definition clashes with the regular perception of the usage of "exploit", you'd be better off just inventing a new word for the sake of the discussion, or use a word whos general meaning is closer to your definition of "exploit".

26 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

Lureplants are placed by the player, and I'm not being contradictory at all.  In fact, I'm being quite strict to my initial defines such that this situation with the exploitation of the bug is cheating in this regard.  It's a minor thing, but not the main focus of my post.
Whether or not it's useful doesn't change the nature of it.  A is A.  A bug is a bug.

They are not a structure however. And a bug to you isn't a bug to me, and to plenty of other people as well.

26 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

In any case, these were merely suggestions for definitions as the parties here in this thread are all using their own forms with no set standards and I'm seeing loops being made which benefit no one.

I wouldn't say that, I'd say that what's mostly happening here is well... people trying to be right. Hence there's a focus on buzzwords, their connotations, and jumping back and forth between definitions while focusing on connotations.

I mean take specifically the enraged klaus-lureplant interaction, why the hell is it so bad? Have you seen anyone bother with it well...ever? I'm gonna guess no. Enraged klaus has absolutely tremendous stats(and I'm not talking just about his hp) with the main intention(by the devs) being that you just don't want to fight him, and this so called abuse doesn't change that. Ultimately I do think the devs did sorta want him to be beaten, but I'm pretty much thinking that they wanted him to be beaten with one sort of cheese/exploit or another, not just taken head on, so I'd say this is sorta the way they expected him to be beaten.

People are calling this abuse and saying this needs to be fixed. Why? Who cares? There's no actual benefit to beating enraged klaus. You're not going to be seeing people do it in your games. And I'm guessing this is also more or less the approach the devs wanted people to take when choosing to fight him(one sort of cheese or another).

[Whoneedspacee]

5 hours ago, spideswine said:

Well fuelweaver himself is "sorta" new, but cheesing him with lureplants took a while to become widespread, so it's sorta new.

As to why it's an abuse to fuelweaver and not for klaus: It makes the fuelweaver fight a lot easier, it doesn't do that for the klaus fight.

An exploit isn't necessarily something working as not intended,as I've said some bugs often becomes features.

The main difference is that lureplant abuse makes the fuelweaver fight a lot easier than regularly fighting him, and also completely trivializes the fight(you just stand there hitting him), the klaus lureplant use isn't very useful, you're still better off fighting regular klaus than cheesing enraged klaus.

Fuelweaver is not new, it’s been about a year and a half since he was released.

Lureplant abuse is not new, stop talking out of your ass with no evidence.

 

About half a year ago, it’s #3 when you search up ancient fuelweaver on youtube.

It does make the Klaus fight easier, vastly, have you even tried with and without the method? I guarantee you can’t beat enraged Klaus without this method (or similar) and bet with this method you use less resources enraged or not.

[spideswine]

3 minutes ago, Whoneedspacee said:

Fuelweaver is not new, it’s been about a year and a half since he was released.

hence "sorta" new

4 minutes ago, Whoneedspacee said:

About half a year ago, it’s #3 when you search up ancient fuelweaver on youtube.

And half a year in dev time for minor bug really isn't much. Especially since the video didn't jump to #3 on youtube on the day of its release, the strategy has only been sorta widespread for a couple of months, which is very much short in dev time for minor bugs that affect a minor portion of the playerbase.

Oh, and this isn't even the proper fuelweaver cheese, but a mostly subpar variant, the fact you didn't even link the proper one just shows how relatively new this exploit is.

7 minutes ago, Whoneedspacee said:

Lureplant abuse is not new, stop talking out of your ass with no evidence.

Which one?

Some are new, some aren't, and some aren't really abuse.

8 minutes ago, Whoneedspacee said:

It does make the Klaus fight easier, vastly, have you even tried with and without the method? I guarantee you can’t beat enraged Klaus

I like how klaus magically turns enraged in this sentence.

A regular klaus fight is much "easier" than cheesing enraged klaus with this, the rewards are also the same. This has also been a major point in my arguments which I've repeated too many times, so I'm legitimately impressed by your ability to miss that part.

10 minutes ago, Whoneedspacee said:

you use less resources enraged or not.

What?

Do you know how much time it would take to kill enraged klaus with this method? Even if you would spend 0 resources just the amount of time lost would make a regular klaus fight cheaper.

[CarlZalph]

4 minutes ago, spideswine said:

And it just ends up making everything more confusing, as your definition clashes with the regular perception of the usage of "exploit", you'd be better off just inventing a new word for the sake of the discussion, or use a word whos general meaning is closer to your definition of "exploit".

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exploit

I'd say I'm more in line with the first form and you're taking to use the second.  Nothing wrong with using it as such, but my definition in context with the game is quite apt and fitting for how I'm using it.

2 hours ago, spideswine said:

(fuelweaver cheese is definitely an exploit though, and I mean that using the more common definition/s of the word)

This is the core statement you've made that conflicts with your others about how the use of the [exploit] is OK in the case with Klaus, but not OK when using the exact same [exploit] on the fuelweaver.

The [exploit] didn't change properties in one scenario to the other, and still remains the exact same [exploit].  A is A.

The act of using it to block boss' movement is a bug as the intention of the developers would be that the destruction of blocking things are to be destroyed along a boss' path.  See: Walls+structures+etc being destroyed along a boss' path to clear the way.  The meatbulb is just an edge case that was overlooked during the development of such code as it conflicts with the intention.

This is all without regard of how beneficial a bug is.  It makes no difference.

[spideswine]

21 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exploit

I'd say I'm more in line with the first form and you're taking to use the second.  Nothing wrong with using it as such, but my definition in context with the game is quite apt and fitting for how I'm using it.

I'm not telling you that your use is inappropriate, I'm telling you that it will just end up confusing people.

I mean overall in the way exploit was used so far, in what way do you think people are using it? If you use something which is technically correct but people are misunderstanding as something else, why even use it in that way? Why not just phrase yourself differently and avoid the confusion?

I mean I don't care too much for it(and I'm not claiming that you're wrong), especially since you state your definition in your post, but anyone joining in the middle(or skimming through your definitions) is going to get confused.

21 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

This is the core statement you've made that conflicts with your others about how the use of the [exploit] is OK in the case with Klaus, but not OK when using the exact same [exploit] on the fuelweaver.

Just because the origin is the same doesn't mean the result is. It has meaningful downsides when used on enraged klaus(and again, imo more or less the way the devs intended him to beaten), that's not the case for fuelweaver.

21 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

The [exploit] didn't change properties in one scenario to the other, and still remains the exact same [exploit].  A is A.

Depends on what you call "properties", if you mean "it blocks movement in both cases" then yes, if you mean it has the same consequences: then very much no.

As I've said using lureplants on enraged klaus is a useless use, you're absolutely better off beating regular klaus, that's not the case with fuelweaver.

21 minutes ago, CarlZalph said:

This is all without regard of how beneficial a bug is.  It makes no difference.

It's a gigantic difference, if a bug makes the game better it won't be fixed, if the developers want something to be in a game then it's not a bug, it's a feature. If something unintended makes the game worse but won't be fixed because the devs have higher priorities, then it's bug.

[Sinister_Fang]

6 hours ago, spideswine said:

The main difference is that lureplant abuse makes the fuelweaver fight a lot easier than regularly fighting him, and also completely trivializes the fight(you just stand there hitting him), the klaus lureplant use isn't very useful, you're still better off fighting regular klaus than cheesing enraged klaus.

Regardless of it's effectiveness, it's either an exploit, or it's not. I just thought it was a bit silly to classify this use of lureplants as an exploit on a case by case basis.

Also, this method can be used to cheese Klaus normally. Just be extra careful of his fire attack, or build a flingo for extra insurance. Now Klaus' only method of destroying the lureplants is now nullified.

[spideswine]

8 minutes ago, Sinister_Fang said:

Regardless of it's effectiveness, it's either an exploit, or it's not. I just thought it was a bit silly to classify this use of lureplants as an exploit on a case by case basis.

I find it silly to not work on a case by case basis.

For example we could make fuelweaver cast his shadow hands before going to close the portal(or disallow lureplant planting in atrium, or make fuelweaver stomp lureplants), what then? Is the "klaus exploit" still an "exploit"? I see no sense in not judging things on a case by case basis. After all things can be changed on a case by case basis.

8 minutes ago, Sinister_Fang said:

Also, this method can be used to cheese Klaus normally. Just be extra careful of his fire attack, or build a flingo for extra insurance. Now Klaus' only method of destroying the lureplants is now nullified.

Is it worth the effort though? Even if it does(and I'm guessing it doesn't) make the fight cheaper, how much of the fight does it trivialize? Are you sure that it won't just make for a somewhat interesting slightly different new strategy?

*To be clear, being "extra careful" will cost time, and skill, it's not a triviality, so it also has a cost.

[DarkXero]

A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways.

Bug: not considering physics instead of workable component may turn obstacles into unintended invincible walls.

An exploit (from the English verb to exploit, meaning "to use something to one’s own advantage") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug or vulnerability to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerized).

Exploit: the strategy (sequence of commands) that takes advantage of the previous bug to cause the unintended Klaus block.

 

Is it cheating? It depends.

Do I care about the strategy? No.

Carry on.

[MondayNight]

Thread kinda derailed.

Also, regardless of being an exploit, bug, or cheat, OP's method is just impractical, even more so if you go with more than 2 people against Klaus. Same applies for FW: if you're marching as a team in Atrium, using Lureplant bulb + Houndinus(es) isn't practical. As for solo world runs, well... let people do whatever they want; either way, they could use console or Puppy Princes Musha to nuke the hell out of everything.

Regarding "bragging rights" via "feats of greatness"... hmm!

[spideswine]

1 hour ago, xxVERSUSxy said:

Same applies for FW: if you're marching as a team in Atrium, using Lureplant bulb + Houndinus(es) isn't practical.

Why not?

I could see it as being cheaper than duoing it if it's a world with two people. More importantly the other form of cheesing it with lureplants(where you get it stuck near/in the spikes at the entrance, teleport to the other side, then beat it to death), is the most efficient way to do it unless maybe you have ~5 people(some of them wolfgangs, as is tradition) to gangbang it.

It actually is quite the problem as far as fuelweaver is concerned, it's just not too widespread yet.

[MondayNight]

Yep, am referring exactly at the "gang-bang-ing", as in my case this was the most frequent form of FW handling I've been part of: 2 Wolfs + 1x Wig + whatever or 2x Wigs + 1x Wolf + whatever. Actually is hilarious how quick FW goes full cross-bone style. And yes, as efficiency (cost of resources invested per gaining) goes for 1-2 people runs, cheese is welcomed; more so if your objective is not fun-and-challenge of said fight, but thulecite farming from Ruins restart and such (more AG farming too for more Houndius for whatever reason one might have).

[Sinister_Fang]

4 hours ago, spideswine said:

I find it silly to not work on a case by case basis.

For example we could make fuelweaver cast his shadow hands before going to close the portal(or disallow lureplant planting in atrium, or make fuelweaver stomp lureplants), what then? Is the "klaus exploit" still an "exploit"? I see no sense in not judging things on a case by case basis. After all things can be changed on a case by case basis.

The strategy as a whole either needs to be considered an exploit or not, otherwise you just create a double standard. "It's ok for you to cheese boss X and Y, but you're not allowed to cheese boss Z because reasons".

3 hours ago, spideswine said:

Is it worth the effort though? Even if it does(and I'm guessing it doesn't) make the fight cheaper, how much of the fight does it trivialize? Are you sure that it won't just make for a somewhat interesting slightly different new strategy?

In theory, it trivializes the challenge of his 2nd form. Dodging his lunging attack takes skill and knowledge of his attack patterns. Completely halting his movement removes this. That, and just limiting the movement of anything in general makes fights easier. Is it as effective as completely shutting down FW? No. Is it still limiting the bosses attacks and tactics? Yes.