Validity of BTW 'exploits'

[fearofshorts]

I've noticed that this community has, on numerous occasions, annoyed FlowerChild by introducing what he considers "exploits" in the game to others. This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate reason to be annoyed as FlowerChild then has to patch out the exploit and the other players who used it will have wasted their time. The problem I'm having is that I (and from the looks of it, many members of our community) can't quite identify things as exploits until after FlowerChild has disclaimed them as such.

To give you some background to my point of view, consider that many of the players of Better than Wolves have gotten into it after playing vanilla Minecraft 'technically'. Technical players exist to push the boundaries of what Minecraft can do- utilizing everything they have to create vastly complex systems, which is naturally fairly close to the intended playstyle of Better than Wolves. But in this complex exploration technical players will find and utilize what many consider to be (and sometimes plainly are) glitches and exploits. They work out how monster spawning works internally, then abuse it to 'farm' them. They kill their character to reach far away locations they have slept in previously. They even pull apart the code for how blocks change states and build Block Update Detectors.

This all works out in vanilla Minecraft pretty well as you only do what you feel is not 'cheating', and as there is a group understanding of the fragile nature of their inventions. Glitches get fixed, mechanics change- technical things in vanilla minecraft are temporal. Better than Wolves is different though- this sense of invention is, in fact, the very heart of its design. If you create a windmill or a bloodwood farm or a breeding system, you can rest assured that it will still work tomorrow because FlowerChild actually wanted you to build it.

But there's still that desire to discover more- "what else can this Block Dispenser be used for?" you might ask. Well, people have worked out how to use them as counters in timers- it makes sense because it deliberately cycles through blocks placed in it. Then you notice that items get pushed out of the way by blocks- "it works with pistons, maybe it will work with block dispensers?" Great- now you have an Archimedes screw. All it took to make the connection was the very logically sound leap from 'blocks displace items' and 'Block Dispensers place blocks' to get to 'Block Dispensers can be used to displace blocks'. Very clearly a hidden feature from FlowerChild.

A new problem- item sorting! If all inventory slots of an object with an inventory have items in them, then that object will not accept any more items unless they can stack with the existing items. Hoppers allow you to place 'filler' items in them to help to fill up their inventory. So this means that you can keep hoppers full of 'filler' items, with only one of a particular item left and it will accept only that item. It seems to make sense, right? It's just a logical implication of one of FlowerChild's design decisions, so surely this is valid. Except it wasn't. FlowerChild took issue with it- it didn't make sense in terms of how hoppers are supposed to function, it just happened to be a circumstance he hadn't considered when adding 'filler' blocks.

Removing this was entirely logical- a real hopper would not function like that. But I'm not arguing that this wasn't an exploit. What I'm arguing is that it was difficult for me (and at least some of us in this community) to identify it as one. The Archimedes screw, while grounded in real-world physics, uses what can be seen as a workaround in Minecraft to prevent items from getting lodged in between blocks. Sure things in the real world get displaced when an object moves into their position, but items in Minecraft appear to exist as only a single point in 3D space, despite them representing a full cubic meter of material. To This is what occurred to me first- to think of items in terms of Minecraft physics and not a physical object. Miller's law states that the average person can only keep 7 +- 2 ideas in mind while thinking. Minecraft and Better than Wolves have thousands of separate ideas- the set of Minecraft 'laws' and the matching, intermingled set of Better than Wolves 'laws'.

FlowerChild is the only one of us who fully understands the design ethics behind Better than Wolves, something we can't ever do completely because he has the future of it planned. I want to know if there's a way to get a better feel for what fits into the world- if there's one or two things I can ask myself before creating anything to ensure that I don't waste my time.

[Mason11987]

Well I think the hopper thing was pretty straightforward. If you're action completely supercedes an existing function of the mod then it's probably an exploit. The filters were meticulously designed to allow filtering but not absolutely control, it requires some thought and planning. If you can completely supersede that restriction by doing something like filling the hopper with bricks, then that's an exploit. It'd be like if you found a way to permenently power your mechanical devices. It makes the windmill and waterwheel completely unnecessary. If it's an unplanned and MUCH cheaper way of doing something, then it's probably an exploit. If the "standard" way becomes the stupid way because of your method, it's probably an exploit.

[morvelaira]

I've personally always defined an exploit as a method that exists in gameplay which, not due to the effects of a bug or technical problem, gives the player benefit far beyond what was originally intended by the designer. Many times, an exploit will change the dynamics of a game entirely, since having power or utility from this unexpected source will invalidate later, planned sources of power or utility.

Since one of the key components of this definition is 'the intent of the designer', it doesn't seem odd to me at all that FlowerChild would be the most adept at spotting exploits when they're brought to the community at large than any of us would be, since he knows his intentions better than any of us. Beyond that, it's a very rare skill in a person to know what makes for a good game and what does not. It's a skill that can be acquired, but is more often a natural talent, so that also reduces -in my mind- the chances that others would pick up on things.

[fearofshorts]

I've personally always defined an exploit as a method that exists in gameplay which, not due to the effects of a bug or technical problem, gives the player benefit far beyond what was originally intended by the designer. Many times, an exploit will change the dynamics of a game entirely, since having power or utility from this unexpected source will invalidate later, planned sources of power or utility.

Since one of the key components of this definition is 'the intent of the designer', it doesn't seem odd to me at all that FlowerChild would be the most adept at spotting exploits when they're brought to the community at large than any of us would be, since he knows his intentions better than any of us. Beyond that, it's a very rare skill in a person to know what makes for a good game and what does not. It's a skill that can be acquired, but is more often a natural talent, so that also reduces -in my mind- the chances that others would pick up on things.

I completely agree. What I was trying to express is that I wanted to know if there's a way to get a better grip on 'the intent of the designer'. As is, I find it very difficult to 'guess' the legitimacy of a particular method. FlowerChild likes to let us discover the various uses of new features in Better than Wolves, which is brilliant for those of us with a technical bent, but can cause problems- say I come across a new way of using a block or mechanic that is really powerful. Is that one of the intended purposes of it? Is it a purpose FlowerChild hasn't considered, but is comfortable with? Is it completely unacceptable?

I'm just hoping that the community would have a few ideas on how to identify the legitimacy of an idea without posting it and sharing it (which pisses everyone off if it's not OK).

[Ultionis]

To define exploits within context here, I guess you could call it results achieved by means of non-standard (or rather illegitimate?) gameplay. There are certain 'rules' to abide by to aquire certain materials or to make automated systems work, i.e, if you want SFS, you're gonna have to go through the Urn grinding process. Want continuous mechanical power? Yeah, you need at least one Waterwheel or Windmill.

More often than not, exploits exist due to bugs or even unintended features, and we the users are mostly quite aware that we're being crafty bastards by utilising them. Again to use the Hopper-brick scenario, yes, it was less obvious and didn't exactly turn placenta into gold, but it did render the Hopper filtration system obsolete, another one of those 'rules' to abide by if you seek to achieve proper item sorting.

if there's one or two things I can ask myself before creating anything to ensure that I don't waste my time.

Yes, we don't always know that something is an exploit, as MC is by no means realistic and we're not always sure how it's supposed to behave. Worst case scenario, you'll have to rebuild a portion of a farm, or perhaps even scrap an entire farm, but in my opinion rebuilding/redesigning is fun anyway. We're all at the mercy of FlowerChild regarding this though, as he could technically at anytime throw his arms into the air and yell "I'm done!" and stop updating the mod entirely (and that can be said of any mod, or just anything ever - eventually all things become obsolete)

Edit: Damn spelling.

[Ribky]

Well, rule of thumb (that doesn't involve beatings): if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck.

If you find something that seems like you are getting a hold of some resource too easily or are getting a seemingly unfair advantage in the game thanks to a BTW feature, check the wiki, search the forums, double-check to make sure it was intended. Chances are it was A. Something that with enough time you could accomplish due to vanilla functionality and hasn't been addressed or tweaked in BTW, B.intended functionality (if it required a lot of effort to get to the point you're getting the advantage, that's probably it) or C. You found an exploit. Report it. If you are concerned aboutspoiling it, put spoiler tags on it and wait for a mod or FC to read it and reply, then edit it away if it ends up being a secret squirrel feature you didn't want to share.

Generally though, after a release you're going to get big old spoiler threads anyway. Post it in there with a "I don't know if this is intended or not" disclaimer in front of the post. The ones reading those are looking for spoilers anyway.

[morvelaira]

Honestly, the best way is to post your findings if you're not sure of something. The only folks it's ticked off have been those who recognized the exploit, and didn't want to lose access to it.

[DaveYanakov]

Going on history, what pisses FC off is when people say they were sitting on something that he was fixing rather than reporting it. Always search first, but after you have done so, don't be afraid to just make a thread describing what you're doing and that you think it may be an exploit.

[FlowerChild]

If you suspect something might be an exploit, put something clear in the thread title such as "Potential Exploit:" so that I know to read it (since I can't follow every thread), and I'll let you know if it is.

Easy peasy. Not sure what all the fuss is about :)

[Catox]

I think I understand fearofshots point with my own experience.
When I posted about alternative ways of using lenses, finding them perfectly logical in my understanding of their mechanics, you rather quickly got annoyed by it.
When I found the mechanical energy loop 'exploit', it was clearly not an exploit for me but more a logical potentiality given the mechanisms we were presented with : if it is ok to have infinite amounts of energy produced by a single energy source, why not try to get rid of this energy source, for science and fun ? Well, then again, it annoyed you and you told me you didn't like this kind of cheating behavior and that I'd better post this info in the bugs report forum than to answer someone's question.

If you suspect something might be an exploit, put something clear in the thread title such as "Potential Exploit:" so that I know to read it

Well, precisely, we don't always suspect those behaviors to be exploits or bugs.

I'd say if there was something to fuss about, it would be the tendency you seem to have to call cheaters people who had no idea they were cheating.

I'm not fussing, mind you. What I learned here, and keep learning I think, is that you're really a special person with a special character, that you can be hard to reach in the field of "discussion", but that you still have very interesting ideas in general. It makes the place both interesting to read, and 'dangerous' to participate in.
I guess people have to understand that and to learn to be ok with it.

[FlowerChild]

I'd say if there was something to fuss about, it would be the tendency you seem to have to call cheaters people who had no idea they were cheating.

Nah, it just means that you've violated Rule #1.

[SterlingRed]

But in this complex exploration technical players will find and utilize what many consider to be (and sometimes plainly are) glitches and exploits. They work out how monster spawning works internally, then abuse it to 'farm' them. They kill their character to reach far away locations they have slept in previously.

I just wanted to clarify a few things from your OP. Mojang has given no indication that dying to respawn is an exploit, I hadn’t really seen anyone who thought it was until this post. Mojang does consider mob farming an exploit but the majority of the technical players, this mod included, consider it something called ‘emergent gameplay’ ie, evolution of the game beyond the designers initial idea.

Then you notice that items get pushed out of the way by blocks- "it works with pistons, maybe it will work with block dispensers?" Great- now you have an Archimedes screw. All it took to make the connection was the very logically sound leap from 'blocks displace items' and 'Block Dispensers place blocks' to get to 'Block Dispensers can be used to displace blocks'. Very clearly a hidden feature from FlowerChild.

Displacing items when another is placed in its space is vanilla behavior, it is not a hidden feature from FC. It’s just how the game mechanics work in general.

So this means that you can keep hoppers full of 'filler' items, with only one of a particular item left and it will accept only that item. It seems to make sense, right? It's just a logical implication of one of FlowerChild's design decisions, so surely this is valid. Except it wasn't. FlowerChild took issue with it- it didn't make sense in terms of how hoppers are supposed to function, it just happened to be a circumstance he hadn't considered when adding 'filler' blocks.

The thing is, it wasn’t a logical implication. On the surface level yeah sure it was, but if you really thought about what it was doing, it was rather obvious that it was an exploit. Especially considering prior to the change that made this possible, there was a topic in which FC mentioned he was afraid of exploits with the hoppers and bricks. Given that info, plus anyone who has played for a fair amount of time and knows FC wouldn’t make his own features obsolete within the game, the hopper/brick issue should have been clear to those who have been playing a while as soon as they realized what was happening.

When you play the mod for a long time, you get a feel for it, and exploits are much easier to identify, especially by being active on the forums and learning how the mod is designed and FC’s intentions with it. For those who don’t’ have this feel yet, do as suggested above and simply ask, even use the btw irc if you don’t want to create a new topic. If you genuinely don’t know something, this community is incredibly helpful.

[Talarga08]

If you want to report it, it's a bug.
If you DON'T want to report it, it's an exploit. ;)

[FlowerChild]

If you want to report it, it's a bug.
If you DON'T want to report it, it's an exploit. ;)

A big +1 on this one.

I don't really get pissed off at "cheating" as an earlier poster put it. What I get pissed off about is when people either try to keep using these things under the radar, knowing they are probably exploits, or when something is obviously an exploit and they seem to be living in denial of that.

The main reason I get pissed off is that the longer these things go unreported, the more people will inevitably use them, and the more builds I have to break when I finally find out and correct them. It's doing both me and the community a huge disservice when they aren't reported: the community, because they get their builds broken, and me, because I obviously put a ton of work and thought into trying to create a well-balanced play experience, and I really don't appreciate it when the community seems to trying to hinder that process instead of help me with it by reporting these issues as they come up.

To me, infinite power loops and universal filters are so obviously exploits that someone who is incapable of recognizing that, even to the point of still trying to justify that after the fact is living in constant violation of Rule #1, and I just don't want them around.

[fearofshorts]

Thank you all for your advice- it's all about what makes this game and community special.
I think the problem for me was that I had the mentality of a min/max-er- I had decided on a set of rules (what the community and FlowerChild agreed was the best way to play) and kept trying to give myself the best advantage I could. I blame all of the roguelikes I've been playing.
You have all reminded me that Minecraft, particularly with Better than Wolves, is different: it's a game about releasing control of the player and allowing them to decide exactly how much of a challenge they want. You can play on peaceful if you want to, you can branch mine and never explore caves, you can simply stay inside your house forever etc. This makes it that much more difficult to then say "is this within the bounds of the game?". So, I think I will deliberately over-engineer everything for a while- the pleasure of doing something complex should hopefully be greater than the pleasure of finding a unique simple solution.

To me, infinite power loops and universal filters are so obviously exploits that someone who is incapable of recognizing that, even to the point of still trying to justify that after the fact is living in constant violation of Rule #1, and I just don't want them around.

I really shouldn't have used the hopper filter thing as an example... It was just a recent event I thought would help me express my point. I knew it was an exploit. The one I didn't realise was an exploit was the one involving all dogs sharing a small space- I honestly just thought that the lack of automation for that would be the drawback.

[FlowerChild]

I really shouldn't have used the hopper filter thing as an example... It was just a recent event I thought would help me express my point. I knew it was an exploit. The one I didn't realise was an exploit was the one involving all dogs sharing a small space- I honestly just thought that the lack of automation for that would be the drawback.

That one I can understand actually, as it's an established vanilla exploit that Mojang has shown no intention of correcting.

I think that may be one of the primary sources of this problem actually: Mojang generally doesn't fix exploits. So, people get used to them being "part of the game" when to any serious designer, they're a huge no no, and generally an indication that you've screwed up in your design somehow.

Stuff like the North/South rule, or whatever the fuck it is, are obviously exploits and they seem to remain totally oblivious to them, and MC is packed with them.

Keep in mind, that while I might be totally opposed to exploits, I am also a big fan of legitimizing their use through additional features when I feel that they add something worthwhile to gameplay.

Vine Traps are a perfect example. I always considered using signs for the same purpose to represent an exploit, and one I thus refused to use as a player, but I liked the functionality that they provided in mob-trap design, so I legitimized that functionality through providing an alternative.

Saws are another in that lava-blade grinders always struck me as rather lame and bordering on an exploit.

And obviously, mob-traps are another example. Mojang seem to consider them an exploit, whereas I consider them to be some of the most interesting emergent gameplay to come out of MC. So, while they work to make them ineffective/non-functional, I'm going the opposite direction and attempting to integrate them properly into the overall game design.

[Talarga08]

A big +1 on this one.

Jesus rollerblading Christ!!! I've been +1'd by FC!
Now I'm feeling all warm and cozy inside... :')

Now about "legitimizing" exploits, what do you think about the vanilla exploit of using a sign to stop waterflow? Have you embraced it or we shouldn't be using it?

[morvelaira]

If memory serves, he doesn't like that one, but I could be completely remembering things wrong.

[Mason11987]

A big +1 on this one.

Jesus rollerblading Christ!!! I've been +1'd by FC!
Now I'm feeling all warm and cozy inside... :')

Now about "legitimizing" exploits, what do you think about the vanilla exploit of using a sign to stop waterflow? Have you embraced it or we shouldn't be using it?

Well he talked about that in the comment you quoted, he doesn't like it, but I don't think he'd change vanilla behavior when it will definitely break a lot of builds.

[Talarga08]

Well he talked about that in the comment you quoted, he doesn't like it, but I don't think he'd change vanilla behavior when it will definitely break a lot of builds.

I think he was talking about the mobs recognising them as solid blocks and trying to walk over them, that's why I asked about the waterflow issue :)

[Whisp]

Well he talked about that in the comment you quoted, he doesn't like it, but I don't think he'd change vanilla behavior when it will definitely break a lot of builds.

I think he was talking about the mobs recognising them as solid blocks and trying to walk over them, that's why I asked about the waterflow issue :)

He talked about signs in combination with waterflow several times, too. If I remember correctly, he doesn't like that they don't get flushed away by water and can't understand why they weren't implemented that way.
Also, wasn't the signs being recognised as full blocks fixed with the update to the AI?

[Last_Jedi_Standing]

I'm not sure about the whole exploit thing, but I would still like to talk about the hopper/bricks thing (desperately trying to un-break my build). I agree that removing that exploit is a good thing. I just don't like how it was done. I think there should be some way to remove that exploit without killing intended and useful functionality - a precision strike instead of carpet bombing. Now, maybe there isn't any way to do that. The exploit could be so tangled up in the good stuff that they can't be separated. But one of your key criteria for new ideas/features/etc is that they don't break existing builds, and this definitely did. It also messed up the 'hoppers emit redstone power when full' feature. They still do that, but because you can't adjust their inventories, it's pretty useless. And suddenly hoppers have lost a whole range of their functions. I dunno. Like I said, maybe there isn't any way. Maybe you already spent hours deliberating this and now I've poked it and it's the end of the world (I hope it's not that one). But it's frustrating.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, I'm not willing to get into this debate again given the update process I'm engaged in. Deal with it, or don't. Whatever floats your boat.

I think this thread has run its course with regards to the actual topic at hand.