Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why Is Duping A Thing?


Recommended Posts

But they're usually not in place for video game development on a budget.

 

I most certainly agree that they usually aren't practiced, budget size notwithstanding. My question is, "Why the hell aren't they?"

 

People invest time into persistent or semi-persistent games, such as MMOs, with a set of expectations based on the rules of the particular game and the conventions established in the industry. A standard expectation, which ought to be deserved, is that the only way to acquire an item is by following the strictures laid out in the game's overt mechanics. When duping is shown to occur, the players' trust in the game's overt mechanics is shattered, inherently (and, often, irrecoverably) altering their evaluation, whether conscious or subconscious, of the game's worthiness of their investment of time. Games live or die by this evaluation.

 

Why a game developer would shirk the discipline and rigor to safeguard against duping is absolutely beyond me. Sure, bugs occur in all software, and it is to be expected that duping will occur in some games, if only through lapses of discipline. However, it should occur with far lesser frequency, and in far fewer games, than other kinds of bug, because the significance of failure behooves great priority. Instead, it is seemingly ubiquitous.

 

And that's sad.

 

Don't read what I'm not writing: I don't have any specific expectation that Crowfall will suffer from duping problems. They've said good things about how they intend to preempt and react to the issue, and generally I have due confidence in their design and implementation abilities. I bring this topic up simply because people on these forums keep talking about duping as a nigh-inevitable occurrence. That isn't the fault of gamers; it's the fault of a preponderance of game developers, for creating that expectation through lackadaisical development.

 

If you want players to play your game, create expectations of quality, not expectations of failure.

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ACE quotes about what to expect regarding dupes in Crowfall :    

Then you are well aware of why duping occurs. While you can put in place mechanisms/procedures to rigorously test and identify bugs none of those methods are full proof. This is compounded by the fact

I'm not asking how it happens. My question is rhetorical. I keep reading people talking about how ACE is going to handle duping bugs. The assumption that duping is going to be an issue, at least early

I'm kinda on the OP side. I had similar astonishment, when I first read people worrying about duping.

 

Okay, duping was possible in Diablo 1, due to a combination of factors:

1) It's likely, that the game was primarly designed as non networking;

2) There was special "in mouse cursor" inventory slot, which was entirely client side implemented.

Given enough lag, information could desync, making it possible to have item "in cursor", which was already transferred by server to character inventory.

 

But today, we have almost 2 decades of network games with all the basic knowledge, that no trust should be put into client side to prevent cheating (i. e., server should not trust client saying it "you know, I've found another million of gold coins in character inventory"). There's also basic knowledge, that item transfers should be done by transactions: inserting item into new place and erasing it from the old should be done in one action.

 

Personally, as a developer of game, I'd be confused by such worries, if not insulted.

 

I mean, if this issue deserves a worry, then what should we expect about network code, which allows voxel terrain to be randomly generated and then arbitrary destroyed by different players simultaneously, while avoiding creating unbearable network traffic?

Edited by Gremour
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I'm kinda on the OP side. I had similar astonishment, when I first read people worrying about duping.

 

 

 

Personally, as a developer of game, I'd be confused by such worries, if not insulted.

 

 

 

What I don't understand how you think that somehow there will not be present bugs, oversights, hacks in software that will allow for the manipulation of characters inventories, equipment, and currency.

 

FFXIV had a huge problem with a hack/exploit that allowed theft of ingame currency when ARR was released and had to implement massive bans and rollbacks. Archeage also had it's problems as well with duping and inventory exploits. Every single MMO I've played recent memory to way back in the past has had these issues. 

 

Developers have to assume that all this is possible and plan for it because at some point, something will happen, it's not an If but a When scenario.

 

You should be more concerned if people were not worrying about it then being "insulted" on behalf of the dev team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Developers have to assume that all this is possible and plan for it because at some point, something will happen, it's not an If but a When scenario.

 

This, right here, is the false expectation that the preponderance of game developers is responsible for creating. Gamers have become so used to catastrophic bugs that they actually believe they're inevitable. What a sorry state this industry is in.

 

I'm hopeful that ACE will buck the trend.

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This, right here, is the false expectation that the preponderance of game developers is responsible for creating. Gamers have become so used to catastrophic bugs that they actually believe they're inevitable. What a sorry state this industry is in.

 

I'm hopeful that ACE will buck the trend.

 

I don't know of any industry that is perfect. Honestly, we have entire departments dedicated to investigating plane crashes. For the most part people expect airline travel to be safe and for the vast majority that is true. However, we also know that NOTHING is 100%.

 

NASA - Not 100%

Banking - Not 100%

Healthcare - Not 100%

Stock Market - Not 100%

Software - Not 100%

 

You previously stated that you code professionally. Are you stating that you have never had a bug in your code? These dupes don't exist simply because the developers don't care, they exist because they are unknown.They are unknown for a vast number of reasons. I'm trying to figure out how can say that yes bugs will and do exist but can't seem to grasp that a dupe is nothing more than a bug, a bit of code that is not behaving as expected or that is being exploited by a player under extremely isolated circumstances. These dupes don't exist under conditions that the developers see players normally taking.

Edited by Verot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully ArtCraft knows their ACID. I'd like to say there's no excuse for duping bugs in something so item dependent as an MMO, but I have no real idea of how much it would cost to build a transactional system on par with that of a bank.

 

As I have previously stated, banks are not perfect either.

http://abcnews.go.com/beta/Business/atm-error-lets-detroit-man-gamble-15m/story?id=16595361

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955101/Woman-stressed-10-MILLION-mysteriously-deposited-bank-account.html

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-cash-atm-dont-bank-4842100

 

I could keep going...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I most certainly agree that they usually aren't practiced, budget size notwithstanding. My question is, "Why the hell aren't they?"

 

Good question. My guess is that it's viewed as cheaper to lose a couple customers down the road rather than to lengthen development time to patch every hole. That's just a guess, mind you. Hopefully it won't be an issue in CF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not asking how it happens. My question is rhetorical. I keep reading people talking about how ACE is going to handle duping bugs. The assumption that duping is going to be an issue, at least early on, in every new game is ubiquitous, and that's just pathetic.

 

How unfathomably atrocious is your software if duping is even possible in the first place? How does game after game get so horrifically implemented that they have these bugs at all? Is the state of the industry so astoundingly terrible?

 

Preempting duping isn't a matter of just testing enough. It's a matter of having the fundamentally sound design and development acumen not to create loopholes in the first place. This has nothing to do with computer games, specifically; it's just a basic software development topic.

 

Super short version:

Duping issues?? Are we serious???

 

Games are made on incredibly aggressive budgets and time-frames. The code does get atrocious sometimes. As a dev you learn to deal with it, otherwise the game simply wouldn't be made. You have deadlines, and you need to meet them because (a) the game has a release date whether it's been announced or not and (B) you cost the company a lot of money every month. Bugs happen and most fall within the category of acceptable risk, and so the nature of professional software development becomes that of risk management. The cost/benefit ratio of going from "good enough" to "perfect/unbreakable" makes it financially nonviable (if not impossible).

 

Are there ways of coding perfect programs that can be proven to have zero bugs? Theoretically, yes, for some limited applications. Is this economically feasible? Not a chance. Any professional game studio has a quality control/quality assurance staff that tests and reports bugs. They can't catch everything, but they catch the major stuff.

 

At the end of the day, no program is perfect. Bugs will happen. They'll be fixed. The sky won't come falling down. It's cheaper take a risk and clean up if a bug compromises the game's integrity than it is to pay very expensive developers to spend who knows how much extra time pouring over hypotheticals before they even happen (if they do).

Edited by recatek
Link to post
Share on other sites

This, right here, is the false expectation that the preponderance of game developers is responsible for creating. Gamers have become so used to catastrophic bugs that they actually believe they're inevitable. What a sorry state this industry is in.

 

I'm hopeful that ACE will buck the trend.

 

 Right... As opposed to the correct expectation of wishful thinking.

 

Your expectations are not grounded in reality.

Edited by Zandur
Link to post
Share on other sites

You previously stated that you code professionally. Are you stating that you have never had a bug in your code? These dupes don't exist simply because the developers don't care, they exist because they are unknown.They are unknown for a vast number of reasons. I'm trying to figure out how can say that yes bugs will and do exist but can't seem to grasp that a dupe is nothing more than a bug, a bit of code that is not behaving as expected or that is being exploited by a player under extremely isolated circumstances. These dupes don't exist under conditions that the developers see players normally taking.

 

Of course I'm not stating that. I never implied anything of the kind. I never even implied that I expected there to be no dupe bugs in any games. Indeed, I stated the contrary on this very page.

 

Any piece of software is a composition of algorithms. Any algorithm can be shown to be either deterministic or non-deterministic. Because of this, and because we may compose any n algorithms a1...an into composite algorithm A, we can be assured, if we choose to be so, that A is deterministic. Thus, given appropriate selections of a1...an, we can be confident that A is a deterministic finite automaton. If this is the case, we may, with certainty, and given sufficient time, evaluate every possible state of A. Of course, as complexity increases, evaluation time increases, and there is an upper bound on evaluation time according to technology, budget, and resources.

 

Fortunately, the complexity of A is not the product of the complexities of a1...an. Instead, each evaluation f(ai) is independent, and the total evaluation complexity is the sum of the independent evaluations for i = 1...n, plus the evaluation complexity of the algorithm by which A combines a1...an. This is the fundamental predicate of Test-Driven Development and like disciplines. Thus, it is theoretically possible to guarantee that A, perhaps a piece of software, is incapable of achieving unanticipated state.

 

So. Why do bugs occur? Well, it turns out humans are neither perfectly disciplined, nor perfectly consistent in their discipline. Over a large enough expanse of code, a lapse of discipline is extremely likely to occur, particularly when rigorous methodology is not followed. While we could wish all developers exercised unfailing discipline over all ai, it is not reasonably hoped for. Thus, mature development organizations identify critical ai for particular attention and devote comparatively high analysis to them. Because any given ai can be shown to be valid, the most important aspects of a piece of software can be safeguarded from bugs, even if that effort cannot be scaled to the entire application.

 

For those of you thinking that this is nonsense, since you can't anticipate every combination of actions from all the people who might ever use the software, I encourage you to defer your conclusions until you better understand set analysis.

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cheaper take a risk and clean up if a bug compromises the game's integrity than it is to pay very expensive developers to spend who knows how much extra time pouring over hypotheticals before they even happen (if they do).

 

Those who have devoted open-minded trial to disciplines in the vein of Test-Driven Development have discovered that they spend less time, over all, to achieve a particular deliverable than they would have through the undisciplined guess-and-check process. Thus, both cost and risk are significantly reduced. The same principle in a different context is given as, "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast".

 

Discipline and rigor in software development have only upsides.

Edited by hamopeche

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right... As opposed to the correct expectation of wishful thinking.

 

Your expectations are not grounded in reality.

One of us knows what he is talking about. I'll give you a hint: it's not you.

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrealistic expectation... obviously ACE will try their best to not have any terrible bugs... but no mmorpg has ever been bugfree...

Your refusal to read for comprehension is well-documented.

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those who have devoted open-minded trial to disciplines in the vein of Test-Driven Development have discovered that they spend less time, over all, to achieve a particular deliverable than they would have through the undisciplined guess-and-check process. Thus, both cost and risk are significantly reduced. The same principle in a different context is given as, "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast".

 

Discipline and rigor in software development have only upsides.

 

One of us knows what he is talking about. I'll give you a hint: it's not you.

 

Well, I for one can't wait to see your GDC post-mortem after you've shipped a unit-tested and provably algorithmically correct game from a large dev team in a reasonable timeframe.

 

Until then, looks like this thread has run its course.

Edited by recatek
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your refusal to read for comprehension is well-documented.

Your expectations are not in line with the reality of software development... you also try to attack people on a personal level when those unrealistic expectations are called into question. 

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I for one can't wait to see your GDC post-mortem after you've shipped a unit-tested and provably algorithmically correct game from a large dev team in a reasonable timeframe.

In my career, I have encountered no shortage of developers who refuse to countenance discipline because they don't already do it and therefore assume it won't work.

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...