Jump to content


Is using terrain pathing issues to crash bots an exploit?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Agnotology #1 Posted 11 August 2016 - 01:45 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 627 battles
  • 393
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

Last night I had a somewhat heated discussion with someone warning them that flying in such a way that would get bots to crash due to bad programming could be considered an exploit. I think this is a community issue, and since I was more than a little whiskied last night, I don't even remember the conversation that well.

 

 

Do you consider flying around a mountain or other large obstacle to get bots to crash an exploit? Do you consider flying next to a vertical cliff face or other obstacle knowing bots will crash into it an exploit?

 

Is this any different from flying sub 30 meters off the deck knowing bots will only engage for short period before their emergency "pull up" sensors go off.

 

Is this any different than stalling out bots?

 

Discuss.

 

My points - everything here has to do with intended function. Bots are not designed to crash. Wargaming specifically said this. Do they sometimes crash, even with zero human intervention? Yes. The northern GA on Fjords will crash depending on spawn. Sometimes as bots go after the last enemy they will sometimes fly straight towards the enemy, regardless of the size of the mountain in front of them. The difference to me is intent. 

 

When you do something intentionally that causes an unintended action that gives you an advantage, you are exploiting. Bots are not designed to crash. But when you exploit their pathing bugs, they will crash en masse. When you do this intentionally, knowing the outcome, you are exploiting.

 

How is this different from stalling bots? Bots were designed to chase players until they stall. The developers literally made this flaw when they designed them. 

 

How is this different from from flying low? Bots were designed this way specifically to stop crashing.

 

All of this highlights that more development needed to go into the bot flight model rather than just having them be able to have greater performance than what is actually possible for humans.


Edited by Agnotology, 11 August 2016 - 05:19 AM.


2_Stroke_Johnson #2 Posted 11 August 2016 - 01:59 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 21 battles
  • 398
  • Member since:
    12-22-2013

I fly around terrain hoping the human pilots chasing me will crash.  They aren't designed to, but they do sometimes.  I know, it's not the same.  sort of, maybe.

 

I agree with you in the extreme case of the player who is so good at predicting bot reactions and eliciting the desired response, he might as well be at the controls.  

 

On the other hand, if you get one of those velcro bots on your tail who will kill you eventually, I won't judge you harshly for running it into the ground.


 


mnbv_fockewulfe #3 Posted 11 August 2016 - 02:07 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 658 battles
  • 3,555
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013
Who needs to fly near a mountain? I had a battle tonight in my Ta 152 dogfighting a bot at low alt, when he flew off and crashed into a mountain for me. It was horizontally BnZing me so  I think it was it had a predetermined flight path that didn't include the mountain. :trollface:

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


GeorgePatton #4 Posted 11 August 2016 - 02:24 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,464
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostAgnotology, on 10 August 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

Discuss.

 

My points - everything here has to do with intended function. Bots are not designed to crash. Wargaming specifically said this. Do they sometimes crash, even with zero human intervention? Yes. The northern GA on Fjords will crash depending on spawn. Sometimes as bots go after the last enemy they will sometimes fly straight towards the enemy, regardless of the size of the mountain in front of them. The difference to me is intent. 

 

When you do something intentionally that causes an unintended action that gives you an advantage, you are exploiting. Bots are not designed to crash. But when you exploit their pathing bugs, they will crash en masse. When you do this intentionally, knowing the outcome, you are exploiting.

 

How is this different from stalling bots? Bots were designed to chase players until they stall. The developers literally made this flaw when they designed them. 

 

How is this different from from flying low? Bots were designed this way specifically to stop crashing.

 

All of this highlights that more development needed to go into the bot flight model rather than just having them be able to have greater performance than what is actually possible for humans.

 

I think that using this logic we could technically say any kind of player skill used to defeat the bots is 'exploiting' them. We all know they do a barrel roll to the left if you go head-to-head with them with a slight displacement to the left - so am I no longer allowed to shoot at that bot because I know what he's programmed to do? If I come in slightly displaced to the right, he'll barrel roll the other way... Want that bot to hold still while you close the distance on him? Don't put your reticle on him until you're within gun range... 

 

Want to kill all of the bots personally? Climb to max altitude and hang them... Can't do that? Go below 30m. See that cliff over there? Yep, go fly beside it.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GouIdy #5 Posted 11 August 2016 - 02:29 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6 battles
  • 2,628
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013
Any time you use the finite behaviors of bots to generate a predictable outcome it is an exploit. Is it cheating? No. Do people abuse this? Hell ya, but the fact is Wargaming turned a game that was designed for strictly PVP into this quasi mess that we have now. Some people still find this game fun & challenging but I am not one of them & there would have to be some drastic changes in the right direction before I would ever think of playing this game regularly ever again. As it is now I play a couple games here & there mostly for the birthday free xp that I am able to use in tanks.

Edited by GouIdy, 11 August 2016 - 04:00 PM.


Bobby_Tables #6 Posted 11 August 2016 - 02:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 9933 battles
  • 1,883
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

I am not good enough to figure out my exact flight path to make bots fly into mountains.  I am not patient enough to take a heavy and fly into the stratosphere and let them stall out coming to get me (most of the time at least). 

 

I did learn long ago before bots that when the chips are down or if you are in a GA and being pursued, putting an obstacle to one side of you limits the enemy angles of attack.  I still use that with bots.  For some reason they seem to avoid the obstacles and still take shots at me.  Like I said, guess I am not good enough to figure out the angles but darned if I am going to deliberately fly over level ground and away from obstacles to avoid any bot hurt feelings. 



Psicko23 #7 Posted 11 August 2016 - 03:27 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 24 battles
  • 2,723
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014
When I fly low to the ground or by a mountain, etc... I cause humans to crash too. If the bots weren't designed to crash, then they wouldn't. They should have programmed them better just like the heavy stall method... oh wait this is Persha we are talking about. I've had bots on my team and enemy team just crash for no reason. Same with humans. I've even dove it a few times. Sure it can be considered an exploit. Until they get rid of bots there will most likely be a way to exploit bots. Either use it to your advantage or don't.

bearrick #8 Posted 11 August 2016 - 03:32 AM

    Community Helper

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2,100
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012
Personally I do not believe it to be an exploit against the bots.  If flying defensively, you can use terrain to your advantage regardless if your aggressor is human or computer.  If the bot AI does not include a programmed conditional to prioritize avoiding terrain over attacking a target, then the AI just isn't as good as it should be if the developers want a bigger challenge.  

I have only been able to persuade bot flight from the other side of the equation where I am the aggressor, and I have persuaded some to make a steeper dive than they can recover from on a few occasions.  But I see this as being no different than just playing against a human of lesser experience who makes the same mistake.  I've misjudged dives myself.  Perhaps against the higher difficulty level bots there could be a guarunteed ground avoidance.

401shield.png 401st Bomb Group STICKER US ARMY AIR CORPS 615th Bomb Squadron.jpg 615th Bombardment Squadron


"What kind of a war is this?" - 2nd Lt. Ken Powell



Ground Assault Specialist and TSh-3 master


GiN_nTonic #9 Posted 11 August 2016 - 04:17 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 1714 battles
  • 3,938
  • [-WS-] -WS-
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

I have to put this in WG mostly - its insane this isn't fixed yet.  Its an exploit, but flip side I remember in full PvP mode I would try to fly around mountains to get better position on someone (or group).  Sometimes the real players would crash as well.

 

Its inexcusable its as bad as it is and WG hasn't addressed the problem. 



Steel_bomber_ #10 Posted 11 August 2016 - 04:55 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 1,519
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    12-28-2013

IMO, anything is allowed for the win, as long as no "cheats" are used if that is even possible.

 

It's not our fault the game is working as intended.

 

After all it's all about the win.


THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
     
 
            

Tophatfire #11 Posted 11 August 2016 - 06:00 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2,889
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

It's somewhere between abusive and exploit, yeah.  And so is skying up the bots to hang them up to stall and pick them off one at a time.  And so is flying away from the battle to let your teammates die first so you get more kills.

 

At the end of the day though it's up to Wargaming to address these, and so far in the span nearing a year since bots were introduced Wargaming has shown a complete lack of willingness or ability to do anything about it.  



losttwo #12 Posted 11 August 2016 - 07:34 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8722 battles
  • 14,696
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012
ex·ploit
verb
3rd person present: exploits
ikˈsploit/
  1. 1.
    make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
    "500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
    synonyms: utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from;
    informalcash in on
    "we should exploit this new technology"
    • use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.
      "the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
    • benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
      "making money does not always mean exploiting others"
      synonyms: take advantage of, abuse, impose on, treat unfairly, misuse, ill-treat; More
      informalwalk (all) over, take for a ride, rip off
      "exploiting the workers"
noun
plural noun: exploits
ˈekˌsploit/
  1. 1.
    a bold or daring feat.
    "the most heroic and secretive exploits of the war"
    synonyms: feat, deed, act, adventure, stunt, escapade; More
    informallark, caper
    "his exploits brought him notoriety"
  2. 2.
    a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system, typically for malicious purposes such as installing malware.
    "if someone you don't know tweets you a link, it's either spam, an exploit, or


Tophatfire #13 Posted 11 August 2016 - 07:59 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 2,889
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postlosttwo, on 11 August 2016 - 03:34 AM, said:

 
a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system

 

Precisely.



losttwo #14 Posted 11 August 2016 - 08:07 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8722 battles
  • 14,696
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

Using the above definition NO ONE IS EXPLOITING the game mechanics.

No one is adding any software to the game to gain an advantage.

 

Bots crashing: Why are bots crashing ?

   Explaining the random crashing and flying straight into a mountain for no apparent reason.

         This game is programmed with a " layered design " system. That is to say the terrain is mapped separately than the planes.

         The bot programming unfortunately is insufficient to be capable of " SEEING " what we see visually but reads the " layered " numbers

          representing the terrain.

         Unfortunately when terrain is mapped and for space saving features their appear to be " holes or gaps " in the terrain.

         The best way to illustrate these " holes or gaps " in the terrain is via this video.

Spoiler


Bots crashing in the course of combat

       Bots are programmed to fly aggressively to engage a target.

       Bots are programmed to " match " or " catch "  a target more than read terrain.

       The best way to simply if this idea is similar to humans that are target fixated and crash.

        A human is more focused on " catching " catching a target rather than watching terrain.

Best way to illustrate this concept is in this video.

Spoiler

 

Stalling Bots :

  As I stated above bots are designed to " catch " a target.

 Bots, other than GA, are designed with aggressive programming rather than passive programming.

I do not think WG has a large enough data base to give bots " tactical " programming as of yet.

 

NOW THE CASE FOR EXPLOITS.

 As long as you are not adding any software to the existing program and playing my the rules and with the program design

 There are no exploits in this game.

Some people may claim that mods are exploits due to it changing the program on the players end of the spectrum.

But the mods are not gaining the player an advantage. Therefore not an exploit.

The reason a mod for cloud removal is not allowed is that it would give the player an advantage therefore an exploit and

would be considered a rule violation.

 

HOPE THIS LAYMAN EXPLANATION HELPS IN THE DISCUSSION.



losttwo #15 Posted 11 August 2016 - 08:11 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8722 battles
  • 14,696
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012
Hopefully I ended the discussion....:P

Edited by losttwo, 11 August 2016 - 08:11 AM.


General_Lee_Miserable #16 Posted 11 August 2016 - 11:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 328 battles
  • 1,624
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

Losttwo...no one wants to read your long drawn out stuff.

 

The proper definition in this context from Websters as it pertains to a transitive verb: 

 

 "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage"

 

In this case, yes, it is exploiting the game mechanics. The mechanics were never intended to work that way. 



Agnotology #17 Posted 11 August 2016 - 11:24 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 627 battles
  • 393
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

removed as drew said it better than I could.


Edited by Agnotology, 11 August 2016 - 12:39 PM.


losttwo #18 Posted 11 August 2016 - 12:53 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8722 battles
  • 14,696
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostAgnotology, on 11 August 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

Losty, i don't go to google when I want computer definitions. but this is from wikipedia, and more in the sense of what we are talking about

 

An exploit (from the English verb to exploit, meaning "using something to one’s own advantage") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or a sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug or vulnerability in order 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 attack.

 

Even by that definition, no one is exploiting the current programed mechanics.

 

Yet, I was looking at other things and found this interesting. While my opinion still stands that " no one is exploiting the game due to WG programmers and their abilities "

Here is a point that could be argued for exploiting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitch

"

Glitches may include incorrectly displayed graphics, collision detection errors, game freezes/crashes, sound errors, and other issues. Graphical glitches are especially notorious in platforming games, where malformed textures can directly affect gameplay (for example, by displaying a ground texture where the code calls for an area that should damage the character, or by not displaying a wall texture where there should be one, resulting in an invisible wall.). Some glitches are potentially dangerous to the game's stored data.[8]

"Glitching" is the practice of players exploiting faults in a video game's programming to achieve tasks that give them an unfair advantage in the game, over NPC's or other players, such as running through walls or defying the game's physics. Glitches can be deliberately induced in certain home video game consoles by manipulating the game medium, such as tilting a ROM cartridge to disconnect one or more connections along the edge connector and interrupt part of the flow of data between the cartridge and the console.[9] This can result in graphic, music, or gameplay errors. Doing this, however, carries the risk of crashing the game or even causing permanent damage to the game medium.[10] "



losttwo #19 Posted 11 August 2016 - 01:01 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8722 battles
  • 14,696
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012
another good link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitching


GouIdy #20 Posted 11 August 2016 - 01:22 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6 battles
  • 2,628
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013
So thanks to losttwo we have gone from a discussion about abusing crappy bot programming to an argument on the meaning of the word exploit.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users