GlassArrow

Forge Top Speedruns (Videos Included)

Recommended Posts

Zinfidel    9
1 hour ago, HamBatter said:

Except it's available to all players in the system to use. There's a difference between competing and wanting to see what's possible.

Exclusivity of the technique and the intention of the exploiter really don't have any bearing on whether or not it's an exploit. If you are commenting on whether Klei should fix it or not, my comment really was only on the nature of "quickshotting" being an exploitation of animation cancelling, instead of an intended mechanic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HamBatter    418
26 minutes ago, Zinfidel said:

Exclusivity of the technique and the intention of the exploiter really don't have any bearing on whether or not it's an exploit. If you are commenting on whether Klei should fix it or not, my comment really was only on the nature of "quickshotting" being an exploitation of animation cancelling, instead of an intended mechanic.

Using quote as context in the context of what you originally quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zinfidel said:

Animation canceling is the mechanic that enables the exploit, not the exploit itself. Using animation cancelling to increase the attack speed of weapons well past what they are supposed to be by tricking the game into discarding the cooldown between attacks is clearly an exploitative use of the mechanic. Animation cancelling does not need to be removed for the exploit to be fixed.

 

What is considered an "exploit" is never black and white in any game. I personally don't consider fast attacking via animation canceling to be an exploit. Probably because this isn't the first time I've come across it in a game. It's existed for over a decade and in a variety of MMO, MOBA, and even RTS games. I've always seen it as adding skill depth and increasing the skill ceiling to a game. I'll take a shot in the dark and say that if you googled animation cancels and faster attacking (which you should because you seem like you're unfamiliar with animation cancels. For instance, an animation is not a "cool down.") you will see a clear consensus of it being supported. And not to get further tangled up in semantics, but not all exploits are considered "cheating."

As for me referring it as a possible intended mechanic, I wasn't implying that it is explicitly intended during development. But rather... not all devs are oblivious to the uses of canceling an animation (which includes faster attacking). Some know it during development, others after the fact. And after knowing that, inspite of having the power to remove it, many have let it stay in many games. Wouldn't you then call that an intended mechanic? Because I would. 

What exploit is acceptable and what is considered cheating is debatable, that is the only thing clear here. Just as you think animation cancels are fine, and rapidfiring is the exploit that needs to be removed because it's cheaty. Similarly, I believe rapidfiring is fine, but using automations to achieve it is cheating, especially in a supposed WR speedrun. That is what the original argument was, iirc. And I don't think so clinging to the fact that it's an exploit absolves players who used automations to achieve a WR. Honestly I would've figured this would be common sense and common spirit of the game, but apparently not. Anyway, call rapidfire whatever your heart desires. In the end the decision of whether it is "unfair" and should be removed, or another skill level and should stay, rests in Klei's hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obzerverlk    9

what ? animation cancelling is an exploit ?   anyone can do it also... but how many people can use that trick to get the 9:57 record ?   u must be kidding me ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eXiGe    25

I think it's fair to say that "perfect" vs "good" single-target canceling is at best 15 seconds of time saved, if that much. There is only a few spots where single-target canceling is more effective than multi-target canceling, especially considering you do not get red staff until end of turtle round. So why is this still being discussed?

Put some effort into paying attention to when and where (that we are standing, targets we are hitting, heals are being placed, AOEs are going off, stuns are being used, items are being dropped and picked up and by who, agro is being pulled), and then you might see where the real time comes from. Then you can start counting the mistakes, think I found around 7 on the sub 10 run.

If that doesn't interest you, feel free to continue with your witch hunt.

On 12/7/2017 at 12:19 PM, Zinfidel said:

I remember thinking to myself when I saw the posted times, "They must be using some really bizarre and unheard of strategy to be getting times like that." The fact that the times were achieved just using well-known techniques, but with nearly inhuman levels of precision and consistency, kind of makes the achievement more impressive to me.

Congrats to all of you.

The reality is, is that these runs were much easier than playing pubs since you never had to compensate for anyone's "lack of experience", I'll call it. :mad:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zinfidel    9
16 hours ago, TheFacelessMane said:

What is considered an "exploit" is never black and white in any game. I personally don't consider fast attacking via animation canceling to be an exploit. Probably because this isn't the first time I've come across it in a game. It's existed for over a decade and in a variety of MMO, MOBA, and even RTS games. I've always seen it as adding skill depth and increasing the skill ceiling to a game. I'll take a shot in the dark and say that if you googled animation cancels and faster attacking (which you should because you seem like you're unfamiliar with animation cancels. For instance, an animation is not a "cool down.") you will see a clear consensus of it being supported. And not to get further tangled up in semantics, but not all exploits are considered "cheating."

Your shot in the dark was very wide of the mark. I've been gaming for a very long and am well aware that trying to distinguish the cooldown period between autoattacks as "an animation not a cooldown" is at best naivety in the broad scope of gaming mechanics or worse, sophistry. Using an animation to cover up the period of time between autoattacks and not giving it a countdown or visual cooldown aid does not mean it's not a cooldown. "Cooldown" has become a pretty widely-scoped word in game development to mean minimum time period between actions. You didn't untangle any semantics at all either, because whether or not the exploit should be considered "cheating" was never a point I made or even tried to make.

16 hours ago, TheFacelessMane said:

As for me referring it as a possible intended mechanic, I wasn't implying that it is explicitly intended during development. But rather... not all devs are oblivious to the uses of canceling an animation (which includes faster attacking). Some know it during development, others after the fact. And after knowing that, inspite of having the power to remove it, many have let it stay in many games. Wouldn't you then call that an intended mechanic? Because I would. 

No, I absolutely would not call a trick that was discovered by developers after their game was released an intended mechanic, even if they decide not to fix it. Actually, that entire scenario implies exactly the opposite about it. I also would not say that guesses about Klei's dev's knowledge of quickshotting in their event or the fact that games in other superficially-similar genres have similar, widely-accepted exploits, lends much credence to the idea that Klei meant for it to be there. Whether a trick like quickshotting is acceptable to use versus whether it was intended or an exploit are related but separate issues that I seem to have to explain repeatedly.

16 hours ago, TheFacelessMane said:

What exploit is acceptable and what is considered cheating is debatable, that is the only thing clear here. Just as you think animation cancels are fine, and rapidfiring is the exploit that needs to be removed because it's cheaty. Similarly, I believe rapidfiring is fine, but using automations to achieve it is cheating, especially in a supposed WR speedrun. That is what the original argument was, iirc.

Not only did I not offer an opinion on whether I think quickshotting needed to be removed, I actually explicitly stated that I was only commenting on the nature of quickshotting being an exploit at all. I would go as far as saying that other posters having a very strong link between the concepts "exploit," "cheating," and "should be removed" are the reasons this argument is happening at all.

16 hours ago, TheFacelessMane said:

And I don't think so clinging to the fact that it's an exploit absolves players who used automations to achieve a WR. Honestly I would've figured this would be common sense and common spirit of the game, but apparently not. Anyway, call rapidfire whatever your heart desires. In the end the decision of whether it is "unfair" and should be removed, or another skill level and should stay, rests in Klei's hands.

Who are you even talking about here? No one has said anything at all about whether or not quickshotting is an exploit absolving players of using automation. The players responsible for the video were literally saying that they hope Klei fixes the exploit so that arguments about whether their skill was natural or augmented wouldn't take place because then there would be no room for automation. In the end, trying to argue that quickshotting isn't an exploit because you personally think it isn't cheating has more to do with what your heart desires. I never argued that because it was an exploit, it should removed because I don't argue that all exploits are bad. 

The only point I wanted to make that might have been implicit was that if Klei decided to remove it, it would be well within reason because they didn't intend for it or design and balance their event around it. And the only reason I care to argue that point is because players trying to re-label an exploit as an intended mechanic, rather than discussing whether the exploit has a place in fair play, only serves to create a toxic player environment where devs are attacked for fixing the game and putting it in line with their vision because players feel like they had a toy taken away.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my. You know, I'm sure you've made some great points in the above comment. Maybe even stuff that I would have to stop and say, "You got me! You're right." But I cannot for the life of me bring myself to read it after seeing its length, lol. To be fair my interest in discussing this any further was pretty exhausted/indifferent already, as implied by my last sentences two sentences in my previous comment. Thanks for the engaging conversation while it lasted though. Cheers and good luck

Edited by TheFacelessMane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now