we are not talking about frost nova. we are talking about cone of cold. and many many times i am using it on the move while being chased by melee. jump shot cone of cold a la hunter. if we are both moving where does that leave me? yet somehow he is able to stab me when i should be gaining distance and negating my slow effect. k.
First: itâs not inherent to the client. They have the data of the old API and itâs functionality could have been restored.
The API had no error in it. It was a bad developer decision back then to allow routines for the vanilla API.
It worked as it was designed. The design was intended because one had to manually programme these option for âroutinesâ into the code of the API.
Bugs are unintended mistakes.
In case of automation through the API there was no unintended function. There just was an unintended extension of the use of this intended function.
But the function itself was intended.
Therefore it does NOT fall under âbug fixâ but under âwellâŚwe made a bad decision that timeâŚso we think it would improve the game to close that formerly intended function for playersâŚjust because we want it that way.â
It is not a bug fix, but an improvement.
One cannot call a former developer decision a âbugâ that has to be fixed.
So I might say âtaking out crusader strike for paladins is a âbugâ that has to be fixedâ.
No, itâs not a bug, itâs active design. So was the API code.
There was no cat running through the keyboard that has led to an unintended code-line of the API. It was active developer work to implement the option of routines for players through the API.
It also is not an exploit cause an exploit requires a bug that is exploited.
Otherwise if normal gameplay can be called âexploitâ if itâs done in an unintended extension we might call âclass stackingâ an exploit.
1 Like
You missed the word âexploitâ. There were bugs in the 1.12 client, but the macro API was updated to prevent exploits, by gold farmers and botters.
Balderdash. An exploit is using a feature for unintended gain or misuse.
Itâs an exploit that you could use the API to bot. Blizzard never intended for that to be the case.
1 Like
So whatâs unintentional about introducing the possibility of routines and players using that possibility?
Or how could one âmisuseâ that?
Itâs like giving the players food to eat and calling âeating the foodâ is unintended misuse.
No, itâs like saying shoving it down someone elseâs throat because we can isnât unintended misuse.
The Vanilla API was easily misused for botting.
Botting is not an intended or supported gameplay method.
No itâs like an inexperienced gaming company giving far more access than they intended, seeing people misuse it, then correcting the issues in the next expansion.
Your metaphors clearly show you donât actually understand what happened.
First: No they gave not far more access than they intended. They gave EXACTLY that amount of access that they indented. This active decision turned out bad later in itâs following consequences for the game. But the function itself and the consequence of using that given function at all was intended.
And just to be exactly here: The consequence of âplayers can automate things by routinesâ is inherent in âgiving the players access to routinesâ. Exactly this cannot be an unintended consequence.
Second: That line of yours actually fits on class design. So letâs talk about how vanilla class design led to misuse by the players in the case of class stacking (or the other way roundâŚâavoiding of classesâ) for progress raids.
Stacking classes is not considered by Blizzard to be cheating. Botting is.
Your pet peeve is not relevant.
You changed the argumentation here.
I am not talking about cheating or not. I am talking about authenticity in the case of bug fixes and bug exploits.
That âroutineâ function was intended design and not a bug that was exploited. Thatâs my point.
It was a mistake by human in design decision. Not an error in the game code.
But there were several mistakes in design decision in vanilla made by humans.
Saying it is right to change that and to IMPROVE the game by now correcting that mistakes is nothing else than saying: We found something in vanilla that was intended when the game was published that today we think could be improvedâŚso we will change that.
And that âit was changed next addonâ argument also fits on hybrid-class design.
![:man_facepalming:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/man_facepalming.png?v=6" ":man_facepalming:")
Blizzard said they would be fixing the bugs and exploits, from the first announcement. SecureFrames was to fix an exploit that allowed people to easily bot with the Vanilla API.
Stacking classes is a game mechanic and in no way an exploit, otherwise Blizzard would have done something about it in the last 15 years.
Get off your soapbox about a problem that isnât a problem.
Hmm I feel like I might have inadvertantly stirred up an anthillâŚ
Yep. They said that. But the API change is not a bug fix (and Itâs use was no bug exploit), but an improvement. A change.
âExploitâ refers to a bug or to a security lack. This function of the API was neither a bug (but intended (bad) design decision) and it was also not a security lack for the game.
It just was bad design.
You mean âdone something about itâ like: âbring the player not the classâ?
So we might talk about âclass stacking in vanilla as exploit that was cured by better balance in the following addonsâ?
1 Like
False.
Wrong.
No, like having class limits on things.
No it wasnât. They still class stack today.
This is just a petty attempt to push an agenda. You are going to have to heal as a Paladin. Get used to it.
So how about telling me why?
An exploit (from the English verb to exploit, meaning âto use something to oneâs own advantageâ) is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug or vulnerability to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerized). Such behavior frequently includes things like gaining control of a computer system, allowing privilege escalation, or a denial-of-service (DoS or related DDoS) attack.
Source: Wikipedia.
âtakes advantage of a bug or vulnerabilityâ.
Bug = not given cause intended design decision.
vulnerability = not given cause API function did not harm the game in itâs functionality.
I did. Above. It was never intended to allow botting. So they fixed it. The API functions being unrestricted caused great harm because people used them to RMT.
If leeway scales based on latency and most people have low latency, why are all people running numbers based on the maximum value?
Leeway doesnât scale with latency.
Leeway becomes identifiable at low latency, and hidden at high latencyâŚ
Because thatâs how it works.
But actively including âroutinesâ is nothing else than âincluding a form of bottingâ.
Because the action done by âroutinesâ is âautomationâ.
So it was an âintended kind bottingâ.
No. Search wikipedia for the âLaw of Unintended Consequencesâ before you spout off technical terms.
I just deduct it from itâs ontology.
The code line of âroutinesâ was intentionally implemented. You cannot say the code line was intentionally implemented and than conclude to: âusing routines is unintended misuseâ.