95 replies to this topic

[Aresye]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 04:29 PM, said:

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

It wasn't until PGI said that it was overlooked. From that point on when PGI admitted they made a mistake, anybody continuing to use it would be exploiting at that point.

Once PGI has blocked it, if a player finds a way to bypass the block in order to utilize it, it wouldn't be exploiting. That would fall under the definition of hacking/cheating, which is much more severe.

Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that nobody noticed. The key word you must remember in regards to exploiting is "unintended."

[MechWarrior3671771]

"Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that nobody noticed."

Nope. Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that devs didn't intend to be used that way.


"It wasn't [an exploit] until PGI said that it was overlooked."

Nope. An exploit is an exploit regardless of whether the devs know about it.

I see now why you guys are trying to float this justification - you want to put the blame for using exploits on PGI, instead of taking personal responsibility for using what you know to be exploits.

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 06:52 PM.

[Mystere]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

"Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that nobody noticed."

Nope. Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that devs didn't intend to be used that way.


"It wasn't [an exploit] until PGI said that it was overlooked."

Nope. An exploit is an exploit regardless of whether the devs know about it.

I see now why you guys are trying to float this justification - you want to put the blame for using exploits on PGI, instead of taking personal responsibility for using what you know to be exploits.

LOL! Personal responsibility for what, informing PGI of the problem? You're utterly hilarious.

[Aresye]

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

"Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that nobody noticed."

Nope. Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that devs didn't intend to be used that way.

Did you just go full ******, or did you just not read the last line of my response, where I specifically mentioned that the key word was, "unintended?" You do realize that, "didn't intend," and, "unintended," literally mean the same thing, right? There is absolutely no way you are NOT a troll, because it isn't possible that somebody could possibly be that dimwitted.

Anyways, thank you for agreeing with me, even though you said you disagree. Your correction simply reworded the same thing I said, so...ipso facto, you just agreed with me.

So let's recap, because I'm 99% certain you're going to now end up literally disagreeing with yourself. You said:

Quote

Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that devs didn't intend to be used that way.

These are your words. Not mine, nor anybody else's. This is a direct quote taken from your post specifically where you have just defined the term, "exploiting."

So now that we understand that this is YOUR definition to define exploiting, could you please provide evidence that the devs did not SPECIFICALLY intend for r_glow to be utilized in the way it is being utilized?

And just because I know you will, the "Rules & Guidelines" post about user.cfg and 3rd party apps is not proof, because it doesn't mention r_glow specifically. I want you to PROVE to all of us, beyond any shred of doubt, that the specific command of "r_glow=0" was NOT intended by the devs to be there.

[Kira Onime]

[Sarlic]

You know this reponse from PGI is classified as facepalm X!

I just LOL at guys who think this game can be competitive at all while in my opinion you lay your trust in this gamestudio who have remotely no idea how to approach such things.

They want to go to e-sports? Nnnnngggggggnnnggggg.

It's always the players who have to help them out. If you think PGI is even capeable of jugding what's allowed or not then i have to come over and personally give a slap in your face.

Editting ini and config files is and always have been a grey area. The only difference is how far you may go is decided by the gamestudio.

Edited by Sarlic, 02 December 2015 - 08:04 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

This thread is new and different...

But I have this strange sense of Deja vu

[MechWarrior3671771]

Mystere: "LOL! Personal responsibility for what, informing PGI of the problem?"

Personal responsibility to not use an exploit, instead of pretending its allowed because PGI hasn't said not to.

Lots of players know of exploits and refuse to use them. They don't need a statement from PGI.

[MechWarrior3671771]

Aresye Kerensky: "These are your words. Not mine, nor anybody else's."

uhm... how to break this to you... everything in italics is a direct cut-n-paste of your own words posted at 9:29pm. All I changed was the underlined part:

"Exploiting is using a function that exists within the game, whether it's a bug, quirk mistake, or something overlooked such as the wallhack in user.cfg that devs didn't intend to be used that way."

So I'm going to leave you alone for now. Its simply not sporting.

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 02 December 2015 - 08:58 PM.

[old man odin]

It's worth noting that e_ViewDistCompMaxSize (the cvar they are removing) is functionally similar to the Object Detail and Enviroment settings in game, only more specific. I think it's time to take another look at draw distance in this game as a whole. It would nice if changing these tolow only changed the quality. As is this is frustrating to use to increase FPS for the average person as it makes it harder to trade at range and is potentially, if not practically, exploitable.

Probably also a good idea to review the active user.cfg lines. While I'm very much in favour of keeping it open (it handles many niche settings that don't translate well to an options menu), it doesn't mean that all cvars are harmless. e_ViewDistCompMaxSize was very clearly abusable and it's possible there are other oversights there. This is supposedly the list of all lines that are whitelisted at the moment:

http://pastebin.com/8TMa8NEH

Be warned, it's a boring read.

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

Mystere: "LOL! Personal responsibility for what, informing PGI of the problem?"

Personal responsibility to not use an exploit, instead of pretending its allowed because PGI hasn't said not to.

Lots of players know of exploits and refuse to use them. They don't need a statement from PGI.

Fen mate, you're being a bell end. Implying (strongly, in this case) that everyone who doesn't agree with you is exploiting is just stupid. It's extremely hypocritical given you play the wounded party every other page of the deleted thread.

Edited by Odins Steed, 02 December 2015 - 11:47 PM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"Implying (strongly, in this case) that everyone who doesn't agree with you is exploiting is just stupid"

Yah that would be stupid, which is one reason why I'm not doing that.

What I am addressing here is the mentality that an exploit is okay to use until PGI specifically says not to. Maybe I wasn't clear. There is an attitude of "that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted". They are basically saying they would do whatever PGI lets them get away with. And that's dishonest.

For example, if you could edit screen shake out of your game using the user.cfg, would you? Would you claim its allowed simply because PGI hadn't yet ruled on it? Or even been made aware of it?

I know I wouldn't. And I would at least ask if the devs really meant for me to be able to use performance settings to remove screenshake (or entire terrain features, as the wallhack edit did).

Does that make sense to you? I am not saying anyone who disagrees with me is an exploiter, I'm saying that many of them are making lame excuses to justify the use of exploits. Spreading false information, misrepresenting PGI FAQs, etc. The shorter version is that experienced gamers have a basic understanding of what is allowed and shouldn't need PGI looking over their shoulder to stop them from using exploits.

[old man odin]

Fen Tetsudo, on 03 December 2015 - 12:13 AM, said:

For example, if you could edit screen shake out of your game using the user.cfg, would you? Would you claim its allowed simply because PGI hadn't yet ruled on it? Or even been made aware of it?

Hell yeah I'd do it, that sounds sweet. Of course I'd assume it's allowed without them specifically commenting on that variable as every official statement from PGI says that user.cfg modifications are okay. Whether it should remain active would be a worthy discussion to have, like with e_ViewDistCompMaxSize, but there is no room for interpretation on it's legitimacy. It's not even a case of not being expressly forbidden but one of being expressly permitted.

....and mate, either you did imply that people in this thread are exploiters or your grasp on the English language is terrible:

Fen Tetsudo, on 02 December 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

I see now why you guys are trying to float this justification - you want to put the blame for using exploits on PGI, instead of taking personal responsibility for using what you know to be exploits.

I'm being kind of generous calling this an implication.

Edited by Odins Steed, 03 December 2015 - 12:51 AM.

[dario03]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 02 December 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

Is there a cvar that increases max draw distance? It's annoying when the terrain doesn't fully draw and I can see the edge of an enemy mech, shoot at it, but hit the terrain that isn't fully drawn.

Its the same command. Which is why I was saying they should just limit the input range. With that said though, even with that and/or the game settings turned up you can still have issues with invisible walls and pop in.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"every official statement from PGI says that user.cfg modifications are okay"

Within limits

"As long as you are editing the user.cfg file in good faith, this is not a concern."

"We hope this clarifies a few questions regarding what is acceptable to modify in the MechWarrior Online game client. 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, 03 December 2015 - 12:56 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

dario03, on 03 December 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

Its the same command. Which is why I was saying they should just limit the input range. With that said though, even with that and/or the game settings turned up you can still have issues with invisible walls and pop in.

Goddammit... Really? Looks like I'm stuck with the non-rendering terrain at mid to long ranges. I wish there was a way to force it to render farther than that command.

Thanks for the reply.

[old man odin]

dario03, on 03 December 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

Its the same command. Which is why I was saying they should just limit the input range. With that said though, even with that and/or the game settings turned up you can still have issues with invisible walls and pop in.

iirc It didn't make any difference over just turning up your Environment and Object Details settings. If these also effected the quality of objects at a distance it might have been useful for FPS to turn them to low and put e_ViewDistCompMaxSize up really high, but that's just speculation. Never experimented enough to find out.

Fen Tetsudo, on 03 December 2015 - 12:56 AM, said:

"every official statement from PGI says that user.cfg modifications are okay"

Within limits

"As long as you are editing the user.cfg file in good faith, this is not a concern."

"We hope this clarifies a few questions regarding what is acceptable to modify in the MechWarrior Online game client. 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

First off that second quote is on an entirely different topic. Which is funny, given you just went on a tirade about spreading false information and misrepresenting the FAQ. It's irrelevant to any discussion on the user.cfg. If you want to talk about something like SweetFX though, keep it in mind.

As for the 'in good faith line'? It's incredibly vague (likely intentionally so, game ToS lines like these are left in so devs can do whatever the hell they want) and doesn't actually contradict anything I've said. Other statements have been far more specific on the issue. E.g.:

Quote

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.

Thanks,

Bobby Jubraj
Technical Support Representative
Piranha Games

Edited by Odins Steed, 03 December 2015 - 01:20 AM.

[dario03]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 03 December 2015 - 12:56 AM, said:

Goddammit... Really? Looks like I'm stuck with the non-rendering terrain at mid to long ranges. I wish there was a way to force it to render farther than that command.

Thanks for the reply.

If your settings for object detail and enviroment are turned up then yeah the command probably doesn't do much. And yes there are still invisible walls and pop in. However its not as bad as having those settings turned down.
And yeah it would be nice if they would just add a view distance setting in the UI that let you turn that and only that up. But you would still have issues since the invisible walls and pop in that I'm talking about happen at normal ranges. Maybe if you turn everything up it would help but you of course could still have invisible walls since not all of the object hitboxes are perfect.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

dario03, on 03 December 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

If your settings for object detail and enviroment are turned up then yeah the command probably doesn't do much. And yes there are still invisible walls and pop in. However its not as bad as having those settings turned down.
And yeah it would be nice if they would just add a view distance setting in the UI that let you turn that and only that up. But you would still have issues since the invisible walls and pop in that I'm talking about happen at normal ranges. Maybe if you turn everything up it would help but you of course could still have invisible walls since not all of the object hitboxes are perfect.

Aight, I'll go tinker with my setting some to see if I can alleviate the issue of terrain popping.

Thanks for the replies. I'll likely come back here with my findings.

[old man odin]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 03 December 2015 - 01:08 AM, said:

Aight, I'll go tinker with my setting some to see if I can alleviate the issue of terrain popping.

Thanks for the replies. I'll likely come back here with my findings.

Object Detail and Environment are the only two settings that will make a difference here. From a guide I wrote on MWO settings awhile back:

Quote

Object Detail:

This is extremely important. Especially in maps like the new River City. It deals with the rendering of buildings and other static objects at a distance. With it set to low, you'll be able to see mechs through buildings at long range. While this might initially seem like an advantage, after getting caught up trading from spaceport to upper city you'll see why it's a huge detriment. In the end you need to see when they are poking out of cover much more than you need to see they were there at all. The performance hit from this isn't very large especially when considering the gain.

Keep this at 'Very High'.

Environment:

This is similar to Object Detail, but quite as important. It handles terrain detailing. On low you'll find ridges and terrain isn't particularly representative of the hitboxes, creating more invisible walls. It's no where near as severe as Object Detail for this, but without a massive performance hit you it's worth having turned up.

Keep this at 'Very High'.

Edited by Odins Steed, 03 December 2015 - 01:11 AM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"First off that second quote is on an entirely different topic"

No, its a summary of the entire topic. Here is the full quote. Note that its not part of the Q&A, it a conclusion that is talking about BOTH user.cfg edits AND 3rd party apps:

"We hope this clarifies a few questions regarding what is acceptable to modify in the MechWarrior Online game client. In summary, if a modification is giving some sort of benefit over other players, this is a violation of our Terms of Use. As always, Support will not be able to assist you with technical issues if you have modified your game client OR are using any unsupported 3rd party tools."

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



"Which is funny, given you just went on a tirade about spreading false information and misrepresenting the FAQ."

But that's what you are doing now. Either deliberately, or you're simply not understanding what you read. You are pretending the summary is still talking about 3rd party apps when its not. Its a conclusionary paragraph thats talking about 3rd party apps AND user.cfg edits.


"As for the 'in good faith line'? It's incredibly vague and doesn't actually contradict anything I've said."

Yah it does. It means PGI believes some edits are made in "bad faith", else they wouldn't feel a need to say that edits are okay only if made in good faith. Its more specific in the intro, which says: "However, it is acceptable to edit the user.cfg file under certain conditions as described in the FAQs below"


"Other statements have been far more specific on the issue: '...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.'"

All that says is PGI will not take administrative action against players who create problematic edits (which would include exploits), instead they will simply remove the ability to make those edits. So its not saying that all edits are okay, its saying PGI will remove the ones they deem are not okay, as they become aware of them.

Edited by Fen Tetsudo, 03 December 2015 - 01:53 AM.