95 replies to this topic

[MechWarrior3671771]

"If exploiting is a bannable offense, and you can't be banned for editing user.cfg, then editing user.cfg is not an exploit. That's not bootstrap logic. That's not magic space dust logic. It's just logic. That's how logic works."

No, its not. And its sad that you can't understand why that's wrong. Try this:

"Police have declined to charge the protestors with assault"

Does that mean the protestors didn't assault the police? Nope.

Does that mean assaulting the police is allowed? Nope.

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 03:35 PM.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

"If exploiting is a bannable offense, and you can't be banned for editing user.cfg, then editing user.cfg is not an exploit. That's not bootstrap logic. That's not magic space dust logic. It's just logic. That's how logic works."

No, its not. And its sad that you can't understand why that's wrong. Try this:

"Police have declined to charge the protestors with assault"

Does that mean assaulting the police is okay? Nope.

Straw man.

Is it okay to assault the police? No, because that would be assault. In your example, there's insufficient proof of assault, so no assault charge was filed. I.e. it wasn't assault.

Edits to user.cfg may cause unintended consequences, and PGI may choose to remove the functionality of those edits. That does not in any way make those edits exploits.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"Is it okay to assault the police? No, because that would be assault."

Not by your logic, your logic is "Exploiting Assault is a bannable arrestible offense. You won't be banned arrested for editing user.cfg attacking police, therefore any edit to user.cfg attacking police is not an exploit assault."


"Edits to user.cfg may cause unintended consequences, and PGI may choose to remove the functionality of those edits."

Agreed.


"That does not in any way make those edits exploits."

So you are claiming the wallhack edit of user.cfg is not an exploit?

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 03:47 PM.

[Roadkill]

Nope.

PGI said that you will never be banned for editing user.cfg. In other words, they've said that editing user.cfg is not an exploit. It is, in their eyes, not a crime.

No one has said that assaulting a police officer is not a crime.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"No one has said that assaulting a police officer is not a crime"

You did. You said if police decline to charge protesters with assault, it means its not a crime.


"In other words, they've said that editing user.cfg is not an exploit."

They have not said that, what they have said is that edits to the user.cfg that are deemed exploits will be removed.

And still waiting for you to deny that the wallhack edit to user.cfg is an exploit....

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

"No one has said that assaulting a police officer is not a crime"

You did. You said if police decline to charge protesters with assault, it means its not a crime.

No, I said that if the police tell you that you will never be arrested for commiting assault, then assault is not a crime.

Big difference between a single, rare example and a statement that it will never happen.

Quote

"In other words, they've said that editing user.cfg is not an exploit."

They have not said that, what they have said is that edits to the user.cfg that are deemed exploits will be removed.

No, that's not what they said. They said that they may remove edits to user.cfg if they determine that they don't want those edits to be available anymore. That doesn't mean they are exploits any more than removing the +50% Gauss Rifle cooldown from the Grid Iron means that it was an exploit.

Quote

And still waiting for you to deny that the wallhack edit to user.cfg is an exploit....

I'm still waiting for you to admit that using the Grid Iron's +50% Gauss Cooldown was an exploit....

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

"If exploiting is a bannable offense, and you can't be banned for editing user.cfg, then editing user.cfg is not an exploit. That's not bootstrap logic. That's not magic space dust logic. It's just logic. That's how logic works."

the argument to why the cfg needs to be locked down entirely right there

[MechWarrior3671771]

MechWarrior Buddah, that's Roadkill's quote not mine.


Roadkill: "I'm still waiting for you to admit that using the Grid Iron's +50% Gauss Cooldown was an exploit...

Funny. 3 times I've asked you if editing user.cfg to create the wallhack is an exploit, and each time you have dodged the question. Why? Because you know its an exploit and it destroys your claim that user.cfg can't be edited to create exploits.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

Funny. 3 times I've asked you if editing user.cfg to create the wallhack is an exploit, and each time you have dodged the question. Why? Because you know its an exploit and it destroys your claim that user.cfg can't be edited to create exploits.

I'm not dodging the question, I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant as my Grid Iron example illustrates.

Seriously. If you think an edit to user.cfg is an exploit just because PGI removes it, then the same is true for things like +50% Gauss Rifle quirks that everyone (except PGI, apparently) knew were too high.

Unintended consequences, right? Using them to your advantage, right?

As I've said all along, it's just your terminology. The more you argue it, the more I'm convinced that you're using the term "exploit" deliberately to provoke response even though you know it isn't actually an exploit.

[GreenHell]

Good god guys... I posted my email from PGI to show that user.cfg edits were allowed but that if they found any they didn't like they would remove them, not so that you guys could continue to argue over it... It's very simple: Edits to the user.cfg file are allowed, but if they find one they don't like then it will be removed. That's all there is to it.

As for the "wall-hack" setting, that's PGIs mistake for leaving it in there.

TLDR: user.cfg edits are allowed until PGI removes that setting.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"I'm not dodging the question, I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant as my Grid Iron example illustrates."

No one was talking about Grid Irons, and the question was asked before you brought up Grid Irons.


"Seriously. If you think an edit to user.cfg is an exploit just because PGI removes "

Never said that. While PGI removes exploits, not everything they remove is an exploit.

Now back to the qualifier, so I know whether you are worth taking seriously: is the wallhack edit to the user.cfg an exploit?

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 04:30 PM.

[Roadkill]

I brought up the Grid Iron to point out the fallacy of your question. Your contention is that the wallhack edit is an exploit because PGI removed it. Did you ever try that edit? If it was even useful, the conditions were pretty specific. Comp players get worked up about all kinds of minutia because they are worried that someone else will figure out a way to abuse it. PGI could have simply tuned the range of values available, but instead chose to remove it completely. Presumably because removing it completely is easier than constraining it. So it was a balance issue, conceptually similar to the Grid Iron's overpowered Gauss Rifle quirk.

Since PGI declined to remove the r_glow edit, do you admit that it is not an exploit?

[Mystere]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

"If exploiting is a bannable offense, and you can't be banned for editing user.cfg, then editing user.cfg is not an exploit. That's not bootstrap logic. That's not magic space dust logic. It's just logic. That's how logic works."

No, its not. And its sad that you can't understand why that's wrong. Try this:

"Police have declined to charge the protestors with assault"

Does that mean the protestors didn't assault the police? Nope.

Does that mean assaulting the police is allowed? Nope.

What lolgic () is that?

Assaulting an officer of the law is a criminal offense. But, if they do not charge the person who committed the offense, it means they decided not to.

That is a lot different from doing something that is explicitly allowed.

Edited by Mystere, 02 December 2015 - 04:56 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Having myself once been the center of an 'exploit' accusation (some of the quotes here came from my threads about the situation) I can tell you there are many reasons why PGI removes certain functions from the USER.CFG.

1. They just don't want to have to support the game if it craps out due to a variable being adjusted by a user that causes a game crash.
2. Exploits.
3. Money.

The in my case it was the setting that prevented the cockpit from being drawn, and thus removed the cockpit glass.

It gave my system an immediate minimum 15fps boost to turn off the entire cockpit.

PGI agreed it wasn't a hack, but the next patch disabled the variable's function from the USER.CFG.

Why? Because if there's no cockpit being drawn, what impetus is there to PURCHASE cockpit items, of which IGP was trying to push so hard and fast like a carnival snake oil salesman.

[MechWarrior3671771]

Mystere: "That is a lot different from doing something that is explicitly allowed."


<facepalm> When PGI removes a edit of the user.cfg, that means its not allowed.


And now I understand why PGI staff just ignores the forums. Can't say that I blame them.

[Mystere]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

Mystere: "That is a lot different from doing something that is explicitly allowed."

<facepalm> When PGI removes a edit of the user.cfg, that means its not allowed.

Sigh!

Wrong. It means PGI made an error of omission and are correcting it.

Edited by Mystere, 02 December 2015 - 05:58 PM.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

When PGI removes a edit of the user.cfg, that means its not allowed.

But up until that point, it was explicitly allowed. Edits to user.cfg are explicitly allowed.

If something is explicitly allowed, it is not an exploit.

If something is no longer in the game, it can't be an exploit.

If you find an edit in user.cfg that you think is OP, bring it to PGI's attention. They will investigate, and if they decide that they agree with you they'll disable that edit. But at no point in that process is the edit in question an exploit.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"But up until that point, it was explicitly allowed. Edits to user.cfg are explicitly allowed."

Again no. Read the FAQ. Its says 2 things that refute your point:

1) "As long as you are editing the user.cfg file in good faith, this is not a concern". Edits are allowed only if they are made in good faith, ie. within limits, not explicitly allowed.

2) "We hope this clarifies a few questions regarding what is acceptable to modify in the MechWarrior Online game clientI. In summary, if a modification is giving some sort of benefit over other players, this is a violation of our Terms of Use."

http://mwomercs.com/...62#entry2101562

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 06:05 PM.

[Mystere]

Roadkill, on 02 December 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

But up until that point, it was explicitly allowed. Edits to user.cfg are explicitly allowed.

If something is explicitly allowed, it is not an exploit.

If something is no longer in the game, it can't be an exploit.

If you find an edit in user.cfg that you think is OP, bring it to PGI's attention. They will investigate, and if they decide that they agree with you they'll disable that edit. But at no point in that process is the edit in question an exploit.

Forget it. It's much worse than talking to a wall.

Edited by Mystere, 02 December 2015 - 06:07 PM.

[Roadkill]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Again no. Read the FAQ.

You mean the 2-year old FAQ that hasn't been updated and has very recently been overruled by an official response from PGI? That FAQ?

Bobby Jubraj, PGI Tech Support said:

While modification of the user.cfg is not encouraged due to potential issues with troubleshooting if you run into technical problems down the road, modification of the user.cfg will not result in any moderation action. If we discover a command in the config that negatively effects overall gameplay and balance, we may simply choose to remove the functionality for that command in the future.

Edited by Roadkill, 02 December 2015 - 06:14 PM.