AmberSoler
Auto-translated
Greetings to all who love to invent a problem for themselves and then solve it! :)
I suggest looking at the questions raised in this thread from the perspective of logic and common sense.
1. First, what is a bug? How do we imagine it?
Originally, a bug is a failure in a program's algorithm, unintentionally (by mistake) allowed by the author of the algorithm.
- A fatal bug leads to an algorithm crash and is not considered by us in principle.
- A logical bug (these are exactly what we are considering here) does not lead to an algorithm failure, as it only distorts the final result of its work. Moreover, this distortion is visible only to the developer, because only they possess the information on exactly how a particular algorithm should work. The problem is finding out exactly what the developer intended to see as the result of the program's operation.
Example No. 1. The Ballista and its infinite turn.
The fact that the remaining number of shots is reflected does NOT mean that there must be a finite number of them. Perhaps the logical bug is precisely the fact of having a shot counter for the ballista, when the number was originally planned to be infinite. No one knows for sure exactly what the program developers wanted to see. So we can state that a bug exists, however, we will consider it a feature at least because the computer also uses it with no less efficiency, by the way... :) And therefore—I consider this acceptable.
Example No. 2. Doublecast.
In reality, this bug can also be considered not a bug because of its implementation without the use of third-party tools. It can be used by default by all players, ensuring equality for all tournament participants. This bug only gives an advantage over the poor computer, to which this trick is simply unavailable. But between players, it should cause no internal tension. However, since the developers consciously abandoned this feature, fixing it in later versions of the program, it suggests that they consider it a failure, and therefore—a bug. And here parity is broken—players on different versions of SoD are not in equal conditions. Therefore—taboo.
Example No. 3. Digging for the Grail in one day.
The game description (in context tooltips) clearly states that you cannot dig for the Grail in one day. Protection against such an attempt is set up in a hideous (someone said—simplified) manner. Smart people were able to bypass it. But this only speaks to their ingenuity and deep knowledge of the subject, which deserves loud applause and respect. Nevertheless, since the developers clearly indicated the prohibition of this method of obtaining the Grail, we will consider it a bug. And therefore—taboo.
Example No. 4. Fired—and into battle!
Nothing forbids firing and immediately rehiring a hero within one day. It is forbidden to move with this hero, as there is an obvious logical paradox—an infinite turn for the hero within one day. BUT: we pay our money for this—2500 gold for a standard (same for every hero) portion of movement in 2000 mp. Why a bug? Because it's not mentioned anywhere in the manual? Well, let's imagine for a minute that I found, say, on "AstralWizard," an interview with Gus Smestad himself regarding how by buying back a hero for 2500 gold we get a full movement reserve in return. Let's imagine the devs allowed this consciously. What next? Could a normal person actually say that it is no longer a bug and can be used? Because in this case, the very meaning of the game is lost, when a tank could essentially iron out the map in one day and finish everything very quickly... This is simply not interesting to the players themselves first and foremost. Just as if doublecast were infinite. In this case, the feature simply becomes a destroyer of all game intrigue. There is simply a gentleman's agreement here—to preserve the game intrigue by prohibiting the use of this pseudo-bug. It is impossible to verify.
2. Second, there is a solution to this trouble!
A group of enthusiasts is developing the TE project, in which they simply fixed all logical bugs of the game to avoid such own mishaps and disputes. By the way, many other features that we accept without regret are included among them. For example, heroes having fourth-level strike spells at the start—how is that not a logical bug in the generally accepted sense of the word? TE doesn't have this. Because TE is an addon for athlete-players.
We, however, are closer to amateurs, and therefore we use a program not very suitable for conducting fan tournaments, which is SoD. And so what? Playing hasn't become any less interesting. We all just make peace with the fact of possible unpunished cheating. He who truly finds this abhorrent does not play on SoD. He plays on TE. And those who came to the tournament not for interest, but for a prize place at any cost—are not that dangerous. A detected cheater will be banned—this is known. A solid player with a name will lose more from this than they would gain. A random cheater who won a prize in a tournament once will soon be forgotten by everyone—simply because no one competes with them... After all, we compete primarily with each other. It's doubtful that a normal person would put a system of cheating on stream for the sake of victory—it's too shaky an affair.
3. ArtMoney and its ilk.
Let's immediately distinguish the automation of a template cyclic process from an attempt to falsify it. I will express my opinion regarding the intricacies of programs like Hero-Digger (Geroyekopalka) and the wonder-program by the respected vbn.
- Hero-Digger is not a cheating program. You can definitely dig up any permitted hero in the tavern, spending a lot of time on s/l. Hero-Digger helps to do this faster. That's all. And conversely—any hero who, at the map author's discretion, is unavailable on the map is also unavailable for Hero-Digger. Everything is clean. No one will deceive anyone even if they want to.
- Shooting Automator—I don't exactly imagine how it will behave (unlike Hero-Digger, I have no experience working with it), but from the description, I understood that it simply generates a press of the "fire" key at the selected target, without taking part in controlling the behavior of the target itself. That is, if by some miracle the opponent manages to reach our fast unit, the program will not save the situation. Which means—everything is acceptable, because it's fair.
- ArtMoney. I'll say something heretical. If you use this program as a replacement for the two mentioned above, nothing terrible will happen. There is no difference between digging a hero with Hero-Digger or doing it, perhaps, faster, using ArtMoney.
There is only one significant BUT:
if Adele is forbidden from being summoned on the map by the map creator, then Hero-Digger won't help summon her. ArtMoney will summon her. Maybe not a very successful example, but the essence is the same—there is no guarantee that a player can correctly assess the 100% possibility of solving their task without using ArtMoney. If we know that a hero can be summoned (or, as an option, the battle is definitely won), then ArtMoney is not a hindrance. Here it's just time-saving and nothing more. But what if you are mistaken, and without knowing it (read—unintentionally) become a cheater? Who cares about this? I agree with Iron that cheating is a personal matter for each, and no one forces anyone to cheat using ArtMoney, only there is no protection mode against accidental cheating. That's all. :)
Solely for this reason, I am against the use of ArtMoney even with good intentions. Do not tempt those who are not tempted... It is an ungrateful business.
Summary.
1. Ballista—let it shoot.
2. Hero-Digger and Shooting Automator—no problems.
3. ArtMoney—definitely taboo.
And in general—if you play on SoD, it means the guarantee of a fair fight is not that important to you, because there is none and cannot be. This means you are simply a true fan of the game and primarily play for pleasure. Winning a tournament is not your only goal. Any winner, by default, is not considered a cheater. Whoever cares about exposing them—ask questions. If you fundamentally don't believe in the honesty of an opponent—"Heroes" has nothing to do with it.
As always, imho.
With respect to all who are interested in this opinion,
AmberSoler
I suggest looking at the questions raised in this thread from the perspective of logic and common sense.
1. First, what is a bug? How do we imagine it?
Originally, a bug is a failure in a program's algorithm, unintentionally (by mistake) allowed by the author of the algorithm.
- A fatal bug leads to an algorithm crash and is not considered by us in principle.
- A logical bug (these are exactly what we are considering here) does not lead to an algorithm failure, as it only distorts the final result of its work. Moreover, this distortion is visible only to the developer, because only they possess the information on exactly how a particular algorithm should work. The problem is finding out exactly what the developer intended to see as the result of the program's operation.
Example No. 1. The Ballista and its infinite turn.
The fact that the remaining number of shots is reflected does NOT mean that there must be a finite number of them. Perhaps the logical bug is precisely the fact of having a shot counter for the ballista, when the number was originally planned to be infinite. No one knows for sure exactly what the program developers wanted to see. So we can state that a bug exists, however, we will consider it a feature at least because the computer also uses it with no less efficiency, by the way... :) And therefore—I consider this acceptable.
Example No. 2. Doublecast.
In reality, this bug can also be considered not a bug because of its implementation without the use of third-party tools. It can be used by default by all players, ensuring equality for all tournament participants. This bug only gives an advantage over the poor computer, to which this trick is simply unavailable. But between players, it should cause no internal tension. However, since the developers consciously abandoned this feature, fixing it in later versions of the program, it suggests that they consider it a failure, and therefore—a bug. And here parity is broken—players on different versions of SoD are not in equal conditions. Therefore—taboo.
Example No. 3. Digging for the Grail in one day.
The game description (in context tooltips) clearly states that you cannot dig for the Grail in one day. Protection against such an attempt is set up in a hideous (someone said—simplified) manner. Smart people were able to bypass it. But this only speaks to their ingenuity and deep knowledge of the subject, which deserves loud applause and respect. Nevertheless, since the developers clearly indicated the prohibition of this method of obtaining the Grail, we will consider it a bug. And therefore—taboo.
Example No. 4. Fired—and into battle!
Nothing forbids firing and immediately rehiring a hero within one day. It is forbidden to move with this hero, as there is an obvious logical paradox—an infinite turn for the hero within one day. BUT: we pay our money for this—2500 gold for a standard (same for every hero) portion of movement in 2000 mp. Why a bug? Because it's not mentioned anywhere in the manual? Well, let's imagine for a minute that I found, say, on "AstralWizard," an interview with Gus Smestad himself regarding how by buying back a hero for 2500 gold we get a full movement reserve in return. Let's imagine the devs allowed this consciously. What next? Could a normal person actually say that it is no longer a bug and can be used? Because in this case, the very meaning of the game is lost, when a tank could essentially iron out the map in one day and finish everything very quickly... This is simply not interesting to the players themselves first and foremost. Just as if doublecast were infinite. In this case, the feature simply becomes a destroyer of all game intrigue. There is simply a gentleman's agreement here—to preserve the game intrigue by prohibiting the use of this pseudo-bug. It is impossible to verify.
2. Second, there is a solution to this trouble!
A group of enthusiasts is developing the TE project, in which they simply fixed all logical bugs of the game to avoid such own mishaps and disputes. By the way, many other features that we accept without regret are included among them. For example, heroes having fourth-level strike spells at the start—how is that not a logical bug in the generally accepted sense of the word? TE doesn't have this. Because TE is an addon for athlete-players.
We, however, are closer to amateurs, and therefore we use a program not very suitable for conducting fan tournaments, which is SoD. And so what? Playing hasn't become any less interesting. We all just make peace with the fact of possible unpunished cheating. He who truly finds this abhorrent does not play on SoD. He plays on TE. And those who came to the tournament not for interest, but for a prize place at any cost—are not that dangerous. A detected cheater will be banned—this is known. A solid player with a name will lose more from this than they would gain. A random cheater who won a prize in a tournament once will soon be forgotten by everyone—simply because no one competes with them... After all, we compete primarily with each other. It's doubtful that a normal person would put a system of cheating on stream for the sake of victory—it's too shaky an affair.
3. ArtMoney and its ilk.
Let's immediately distinguish the automation of a template cyclic process from an attempt to falsify it. I will express my opinion regarding the intricacies of programs like Hero-Digger (Geroyekopalka) and the wonder-program by the respected vbn.
- Hero-Digger is not a cheating program. You can definitely dig up any permitted hero in the tavern, spending a lot of time on s/l. Hero-Digger helps to do this faster. That's all. And conversely—any hero who, at the map author's discretion, is unavailable on the map is also unavailable for Hero-Digger. Everything is clean. No one will deceive anyone even if they want to.
- Shooting Automator—I don't exactly imagine how it will behave (unlike Hero-Digger, I have no experience working with it), but from the description, I understood that it simply generates a press of the "fire" key at the selected target, without taking part in controlling the behavior of the target itself. That is, if by some miracle the opponent manages to reach our fast unit, the program will not save the situation. Which means—everything is acceptable, because it's fair.
- ArtMoney. I'll say something heretical. If you use this program as a replacement for the two mentioned above, nothing terrible will happen. There is no difference between digging a hero with Hero-Digger or doing it, perhaps, faster, using ArtMoney.
There is only one significant BUT:
if Adele is forbidden from being summoned on the map by the map creator, then Hero-Digger won't help summon her. ArtMoney will summon her. Maybe not a very successful example, but the essence is the same—there is no guarantee that a player can correctly assess the 100% possibility of solving their task without using ArtMoney. If we know that a hero can be summoned (or, as an option, the battle is definitely won), then ArtMoney is not a hindrance. Here it's just time-saving and nothing more. But what if you are mistaken, and without knowing it (read—unintentionally) become a cheater? Who cares about this? I agree with Iron that cheating is a personal matter for each, and no one forces anyone to cheat using ArtMoney, only there is no protection mode against accidental cheating. That's all. :)
Solely for this reason, I am against the use of ArtMoney even with good intentions. Do not tempt those who are not tempted... It is an ungrateful business.
Summary.
1. Ballista—let it shoot.
2. Hero-Digger and Shooting Automator—no problems.
3. ArtMoney—definitely taboo.
And in general—if you play on SoD, it means the guarantee of a fair fight is not that important to you, because there is none and cannot be. This means you are simply a true fan of the game and primarily play for pleasure. Winning a tournament is not your only goal. Any winner, by default, is not considered a cheater. Whoever cares about exposing them—ask questions. If you fundamentally don't believe in the honesty of an opponent—"Heroes" has nothing to do with it.
As always, imho.
With respect to all who are interested in this opinion,
AmberSoler
