The Metal Rod of Destruction

[squint]

Placing the joint of a metal rod inside another rod causes it to be immediately forced out, which causes huge tension / compression, which often destroys nearby structure, hence the name its been given. Since it doesn't have to be a metal rod, however, just "force of destruction" will do, and since it can be used for purposes other than destruction, well, use the force, 'dillo!

I consider it cheating... Carving holes in the world is fine, solving them without is great, but simply short circuiting the entire pricing structure is ridiculous.

This is an issue in the 'dillo challenge, to the extent that I'm going to be putting two solutions in for the current level, with and without it. With it is quite a bit cheaper, it just feels so lame...

I think it would be nice if the game prevented it... not sure how... it's one of those unsolvable physics problems that results in people stuck to the wall in games like half life... possibly detect it pre-simulation time and just refuse to run atall?

[PeterT]

For the contest I plan to run here (probably starting next weekend) I will allow 2 categories of solutions: a "clean" one where things like this are not allowed (no destruction of existing structures, perhaps also no breaking at all, I will have to think about that), and a "dirty" one where everything goes as long as the level finishes.

I did not vote in the poll as I'm not quite sure myself

[tmcsweeney]

I agree that it seems a bit cheap. But trying to impose extra arbitrary rules on a game is usually a bad idea. For one thing, where do you stop, do you ban all techniques that break the level? what about solutions that accidentally break the level? what defines an "accident", and what about levels that require you to break things (Drop for instance)

There is a really interesting discussion here:
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart1.htm

The jist of it is that if the game allows something either explicitly, or implicitly it then it should be considered part of the game.

You can of course design levels where breaking stuff is either pointless or counter-productive, and I feel that part of becoming a good level designer for AR (or for any game) is knowing this and incororating the full depth of the game into your work.

If PeterS (our Lord and Master) considers that ithis particular technique should be fixed then he can alter the game rules to disallow it, I can think of two fixes that may or may not be practical, depending on the implemtation details:

1. Modify the editor so that a joint can't be placed in the middle of an existing strut (in much the same way as you can't drag struts into a position that violates their maximum or minimum length)

2. Modify the physics solver so that when two beams are threatening to break one another the solver always chooses to break user placed beams in preference to the origonal ones placed in the initial level.

Don't get me wrong, I understand how unsatisfying so called "cheap" solutions are to watch, buy I just don't think you can legislate against them.

(One last example: What about the technique of tying what the designer intended to be a moving part down so that it never comes into play? Is that considered cheating?)

Cheers
Tim

[peterstock]

Option 1 as suggested by Tim seems sensible to me and wouldn't be too difficult to enforce. I think this would be an improvement to the game - I don't think there are many legitimate uses of this 'exploit', are there?

I'll try to get this fix into the next version.

[kingofthespill]

I seem to have started a squabble ...

About Option 1: That's cool. It may cause a few problems in Level 26 - Big Wheel, though.

[BFC]

Destruction of any existing structures is, in my book, a blatent cheat. The structure was put there not to be destroyed, but to be used in some other fashion.

Anything that "destructs" or "breaks" what have you that the person trying to solve the level places as part of his/her solution is perfectly fine however.

Basically, if you cause the destruction of an existing structure your cheating. If YOUR structures break during your solution but do not break any existing structure, it's all good.

The only exception I can see to this is if the author of the level explicity says that destruction is ok or expected. In my level "clockworks" i expect people to use one of the existing cloth strips as a brake. It's fairly obvious that's wh it is there too.

Anyway, my vote is obvious from my statements

-BFC

[tmcsweeney]

I've got no problem with people "breaking" a level in order to reach the goal. If there is an obstacle in the way, how to get past it should be up to the solver.

The only minor niggle I have with this particular trick is that in terms of game balance it is far too cheap for the power it wields.

I occasionally use compressed rubber anchored at one end to ram through a barrier. That feels about right in terms of cost, (rubber and tension are pretty expensive) and so it becomes a trade off between doing that and going the long way round in terms of efficiency. Once you realise you can achieve the same break with just a couple of struts it takes the challenge out of it.

I really like the open endedness of this game, the fact that there isn't just one way to solve each level. If people start insisting that you have to solve the level in the one way it's author intended then that circumvents the entire point of the game (IMHO).

What other cheap tactics do people want to outlaw? The falling plates of doom? (also used to break connections). The use of compressed rubber or rockets to traverse distances intended to be bridged (most of the Void levels)?

It doesn't really matter how many rules you try and impose, people are always going to find exceptional solutions that bend them. The best solution to these problems is to design levels that are resistant to these sort of techniques, and be open minded to the fact that there will always be more than one way to solve them.

Cheers
Tim

[Armadillo Man]

Destruction of any existing structures is, in my book, a blatent cheat. The structure was put there not to be destroyed, but to be used in some other fashion.

I strongly disagree. Once you've published the level and I've downloaded it, it's "mine", and I should be able to play with it as I see fit, within the rules of the game (using compressed rubber or elastics - the particular trick discussed here seems like a cheat). The goal, for me, is to have fun solving a level, and if that involves the destruction of some obstacles, then I see no problems with that. Rubber and elastics have been programmed to behave in this way, and taking advantage of this is not something I would consider cheating.

If you really don't want your constructions to be destroyed, then it's easy to make them basically indestructable (using anchor points). But the less freedom you give me to solve your level as I wish, the less I'm going to enjoy it.

I really like the open endedness of this game, the fact that there isn't just one way to solve each level. If people start insisting that you have to solve the level in the one way it's author intended then that circumvents the entire point of the game (IMHO).

Agreed.

[Zoyx]

I didn't even know about this exploit (placing a joint in existing strut) until I read this thread. Yeah, get rid of it. Sounds like something that goes against the initial design of the game.

[Scips]

I have a question for you.
My solution to level 43 - Cascade was to just build a heavy box, and ram trough most of the floors. I never expected it to work, but it did, for some reason. (You can see the effect on level solution Level 43 - Cascade (Adr - You must see this!) )
Do you consider my breaking of the floors cheating?
It would be VERY easy for the level designer to prevent this solution, and therefore I blame the level designer for doing a bad job about preventing cheating (although, I love the level itself) and not myself.

[BFC]

Anyone can do whatever they wish with any level they download. However, breaking existing structures is cheap, cheesy, lame, etc..pick any derogatory word you like.

So, if getting hung up on the word "cheat" bothers people, don't use it. It's very obvious that an author of a level would not put elaborate structures in place to use, not destroy. The only rational exception to this is if the author states that destruction is expected/required.

So, solve levels however you want. Just know that if you destroy structures your taking the cheap and easy way out. A path most people like to follow these days in life. In my not so humble opinion, solve the level the legit way, don't be a cheap and easy person. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, or even be proud of being able to do it.

Leave the game as it is, people that want to be cheap and easy can. People that want to do things the "right" way can as well. After all, we all get to see the solutions. Any solutions that involve destruction can be viewed as a masterful solution by the "cheaters" and at the same time viewed as a lame solution by anyone solving it without destruction.

The "responsibility" is on the person solving the level, not the designer. No one can predict what other humans will do when presented with a problem to over come. The only person responsible for your actions is yourself.

-BFC

[Zoyx]

This is not a cheat, but an exploit. I don't think this was intended by the developers. Exploiting is using an existing bug in a game to gain an advantage. Cheating is when you hack or modify the base game to gain an advantage.

This exploit takes away from the spirit of the game, and should be discouraged. Hopefully it will be fixed.

[squint]

My original point appears to have been hijacked - I am not bothered about destruction - if a level author wants to state "try to solve this without breaking it" that's fine by me - I'm up for a challenge - generally I think breaking stuff is a valid approach, and making it hard to break isn't difficult.

My issue is exactly as tmc put it... if it costs me rubber and tension to make a hole, that's an expensive alternative to going around. If it costs me $10 there isn't a challenge.

For those who still don't get why I consider this a problem (and for PeterS in case you want something to debug with) please download this little level and watch ... it contains three short verticals (1 rod and 2 sheets). Two of them demonstrate breaking. The other shows what you can do with the 'dillo for a mere $20. Please noone tell me they think it's acceptable to be able to do this?

http://rapidshare.de/files/22379214/jedipowers.lvl.html

[squint]

I've heard the cheats vs exploits argument before... I don't think it holds much water, to be honest.

I don't have to modify monopoly in order to steal money from the bank when my brother isn't watching, so is that an "exploit" or a "cheat" ?

"Cheating" is doing something which is "against the rules". The poll above could be interpretted as "should it be against the rules" if that makes it any clearer?

[BFC]

Hey squint,

I can't view the lvl you just posted until later tonight. However, I get what you're saying.

And just to be clear, cheat/exploit whatever it doesn't matter what you call it.

I say leave the game as it is. There are some minor physics bugs but nothing terrible. The only bug that is probably worth fixing is where you can build a perpetual motion machine without a rocket.

Let the destroyers destroy and let the folks that don't want to destroy do things their way as well. I just hope people can appreciate the difference in achievment between the two.

-BFC