That’s not how Wiki works. Yes it is easy to vandalize a page. But, then the community will fix the vandalism.
Let me put it another way. I have ADHD, so I live outside the box. I cannot overstate how much I disrespect it when people accuse me of cheating for thinking outside the box. Not everyone is good at thinking outside the box. That’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that. They just shouldn’t start insulting people over being insecure about it.
Unless someone specifically called you a “Cheater”, then no one did. You just translate one word to mean another then throw a big fit about it. That’s all this is. Words can mean two or more things, surprise surprise. Language isn’t static.
That’s like someone in a conversation about aircraft saying ‘How do you know that by “jet” they meant “jet plane”? They could have been talking about the particle stream from a black hole!’
Technically true. But, stupid and asinine. Which specific meaning is most likely for a word with multiple meanings is generally made obvious BY CONTEXT. Or, do you think that all the people calling you dumb are saying that you cannot speak?
Player: Oh! This is a cool idea.
Developer: You’re not allowed to be outside the box.
Player: Why not? And, the sign on the box says “this is a cool idea”.
Developer: If you can read that, then you are outside the box.
Player: I don’t think you deserve my money.
Again just this one:
“An exploit is the use of a game system by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game’s designers.”
I can’t see any of what you’re implying, sorry. A listing means one of the reasons may apply, it doesn’t have to be all.
Unless you insist that the exploitation of an implemented “game system” by a gamer in a manner not intended by the developers is also referred to as “cheating”. Developers are allowed to make mistakes that they did not anticipate and they are also allowed to correct them, nothing more has happened here.
2 Likes
No one accused you of cheating. You use available tools in unexpected combination and order to get unintended advantage. That is what I call exploit, not cheat.
That is exactly how Wiki works. The part you are upset about is wrong and is up to deletion because of lack of citation and reliable source. You can alter it any time and it is up to the community review board to decide if alteration is vandalism or clarification. The core rules of Wikipedia state:
Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
The part of Wikipedia article you are upset about:
Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating
Is evaluative claim, not confirmed by anyone. Therefore, I am a bit confused why you are upset about developer statement about exploit and you are not upset about Wikipedia page false claim that exploit is a cheat.
Often kids expecting to get in trouble, say that their parents are going to “kill” them. It’s called hyperbole.
Do you have a better source for a definition for the term “exploit” used in a game specific context? If so, then post it. Because, so far the definition I cited is not just the best definition available, it is the ONLY definition cited at all. And, according to that definition, Snapshot Games accused me of cheating.
What exactly do YOU think they were saying? Do you think that by “exploit” they were saying that players were using remote control and vanish in a fair and reasonable manner? You guys keep arguing with me for taking the word in what the only evidence presented shows to be the primary way the word is used in this context. That sure looks like willful ignorance.
That doesn’t make the Wikipedia article correct. There is a huge frame above the article:
This article possibly contains original research . Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2014)
You are free to improve the definition if you disagree with it. This article contains wrong and unconfirmed evaluative claims based on ones original research since end of 2014. You built your anger on a foundations that the very same page states are wrong and should be removed. You are free to remove them. And then, it will be “better source for a definition for the term “exploit” used in a game specific context”.
I am sorry, but you are ignorant in a way of cherry-picking what you like (actually what you don’t like) from Wikipedia, even if the very same Wikipedia page says you shouldn’t.
Exploit is expoit. Cheat is cheat. Some may consider exploit cheat, some may not. Definition should not contain evaluative claims and therefore such claim can’t be considered part of definition. It is as simple as that.
2 Likes
Definition of exploit on wikipedia:
In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game’s designers.[1]
Not the definition, but a “citation needed” guesswork on wikipedia:
Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating;[ citation needed ]
What we say is that vanish/remote control is an exploit, but not a cheat.
If that’s too hard for you to realize, sadly I don’t think anyone can help you.
1 Like
Did you read the part that said “Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating?” I am fine with them correcting their mistake. Remote control needed the correction, and it was reasonable to change vanish. I am NOT fine with them saying I am “exploiting” for using an ability to do exactly what the in game description says it does. Using an ability AS DESCRIBED does not give me an “unfair advantage”, unless you think flanking an enemy, or shooting them in the face to make them easier to mind control, or using any other effective tactic also does.
Did you read that part that comes right after: “[citation needed]”? This is unconfirmed, false, evaluative claim based on original research you still keep referring to, even if the same Wikipedia page, the Wikipedia core rules, the Wikipedia guidelines says you shouldn’t.
Eh. I’ll do you a favor, just give me a while.
1 Like
Please cite your source, for arguing that an exploit is NOT a cheat. And, if you are going to argue that it is unfair, but not “cheating”, then you are splitting hairs and wasting my time. I am also not OK with them telling me that I was being unfair for using an ability exactly according to the in-game description.
Please cite your source that this is “false”.
Do you have any source clarifying that an exploit is a cheat? So far you only rely on wikipedia, which specifies it as “citation needed”, not as a reliable source.
As long as there is no reliable source saying “exploit = cheat”, the two are not in an “is a” relationship, though they might have some overlap (certain exploits can be cheats, others not).
1 Like
Exploit > cheat but cheat = exploit, nothing more to say here.
Sure they could have use other words but honestly, if a player is dual classing almost any operative into Infiltrator to get this huge damage boost of 100% (double!) + invisibility then in my world it is exploiting a game mechanic or system. I have done this more than once and it is just massive OP to do so because the enemies don’t have any chance against hidden operatives that deals so much damage. For me very clear an exploit of a game mechanic that was just not intended by the designers of this game. I have exploited game mechanics but not cheated in any means, period.
Done. Here’s new “definition” of Video game exploit: Video game exploit - Wikipedia
Hope, according to improved content, you don’t feel offended (or at least don’t feel like someone called you a cheater) anymore.
1 Like
I can see what you did here, Kaltorack. Out of the blue sky you have just called millions of Wikipedia users “vandals” just for editing controversial pages.
I hope English is not your first language and you did that unintentionally.
Otherwise, you have just insulted millions of people.
SHAMEFUL DISPLAY!
Hey guys, what’s the point here.
I don’t care if the word exploiting could be used as cheating or not. I’m annoyed for beeing “called” an expoiter!
I’ve said this here before. I played orignal XCOM, new XCOM, Jagged Alliance 2, 2 Gold, 2 Wildfire Unfinished business and did quite well in new XCOM multiplayer. I don’t claim to be a top player but I’m not a strategie game noob either.
Got my ass kicked by the final boss after running out of ammo and medic kits. Someone gave the hint “oh try a priest”, leveled further up, including two priests. —> Almost got my ass kicked another time (last bosses shield going up the wrong side every time). - “oh the priests ability? That was an exploit. Was fixed with one of the last patches”. What saved me the second time - on lowest difficulty - (though half of my squad was killed by his mark after his own death)? 2 remote control cannons.
Now I’m told - hey you used an exploit there… WTF?
Change it the way you did on the 2 higher difficulties. Leave it like it was on the lower 2.
Where is the point in what you are doing here?
There is a reason why only 6% of the steam buyers ever finished this game.
But hey let’s make the last mission harder…
I would have never touched PP again if I had failed like that on the lowest difficulty in the last mission for a second time.
(I will not reinstall it before christmas anyway - until then the new bugs from festering skies should be solved and I’ll have time to play).
I’m not complaining about the overall difficulty - just about the last mission.