Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
You're just shifting the definition towards "exploit" and not defining it here. Singularity is an exploit, melee punch is. Using defenses that will take advantage of enemy AI is what ? Exploit or not ? Because if it is, you just defined a tree as a killbox while claiming it wasn't.
But your exploit will never be accepted as legitimate gameplay, no matter how many times you try to compare it with a tree standing out in the open.
I mean, if we want to be absurd and claim anything in the game is legitimate, and exploits don't really exist because we can water down the definition to nothing, then sure, I'll call my "killbox" devmode, I erase enemies, that's legitimate gameplay too, no mods required.
That's not how definitions work. If I ask you what a glorp is, don't tell me it's the same thing as a florp. You have to define the term with something that's defined in itself. "exploit" contains even less information than "killbox" in itself.
If you like this definition, keep it, but so far and without telling what "exploit" is you made a tree a killbox with your own words. Either an exploit has to do with a bug/non-intended interaction, or it's just something arbitrarily thrown to describe a strategy you don't like. If it's the former, most killboxes aren't exploits, so by your own definition, most killboxes aren't killboxes. If it's the latter, a tree is a killbox.
And that's not opinion here, it's pure semantics, you're actually just wrong, I don't even care about the killbox discussion, you genuinely didn't define anything.
Você prefere continuar a discussão em português? Os termos seriam um pouco diferentes, mas talvez faça mais sentido, afinal, explicar o sentido de palavras é o campo de dicionários, se não pudermos concordar em absolutamente nenhuma palavra no idioma, então o idioma em questão claramente não nos serve.
Aliás, como poderíamos começar a discussão se você ainda não definiu o sentido da palavra "You" usada no seu primeiro parágrafo? Sem que você defina isso eu não posso continuar a discussão, pois não faço ideia do que você está falando.
Depois disso por favor defina "'re", depois defina, por favor, "just", eu claramente não sei do que você está falando.
Edit: Are we done being dishonest?
There's nothing dishonest here. "Exploit" isn't well-defined, and the most accurate definition I know of has to do with bugs/glitches, which most killboxes aren't made of.
If you want to stop being dishonest, go ahead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit
"... Common types of exploits include:
...
Safe zones
Places where a player can attack with no risk of being attacked back. This is often a form of an exploit in the geometry (terrain) of a game—however, a game may have areas that make players within them safe (especially in PvP games/zones in which the opposing faction(s) may not enter) from attack while not disallowing the safe players to attack.
Game mechanics
Taking advantage of the systems that make up the gameplay. A game mechanics exploit is not a bug: it is a case in which a system is working as designed, but not as intended. An example is the "wavedash" in Super Smash Bros. Melee, in which the momentum gained from using a directional aerial dodge could be retained on landing; with proper timing this allows characters to use a stationary attack while sliding across the ground.
Cheesing
Performing repeated, usually considered cheap, attack moves in such a way that doesn't allow the enemy to respond or fight back. An example would be Street Fighter II in which one can perform repeated moves that keep the enemy being attacked and against the side of the screen, with no way for them to perform a counterattack.
...
Developers may find it difficult to identify and respond to an exploit because players who discover vulnerabilities in a game may be reluctant to inform the game's developers, in order to continue exploiting.[2] However, once developers learn of exploits, the response may include banning players who took advantage of the exploit, changing the game's rules to eliminate it or make it less useful, or even embracing the exploit. Positive opinions of the exploit can lead to the designers embracing it as emergent gameplay, such as when skiing in the Tribes series of games gained developer support. The now-standard practice of rocket jumping originated in a similar way, by exploiting game mechanics in a way not foreseen by the developers. Otherwise, the developers may try to fix the underlying problem, or discourage use of the exploit if the issue cannot be clearly addressed by technical means. In severe cases, players may be banned. Further, the game state of the world may need to be reset to restore game balance. For example, following a serious currency dupe exploit in EverQuest II, the developers removed large amounts of duped money from the game to address the rampant inflation it caused in the game's virtual economy.[10]"
And for the record, yes, savescumming is perhaps the most common type of exploit too, and it was never related to any bugs, just like standing on top of a car where zombies can't reach you in State of Decay, to mow down the entire horde is the exact same type of exploit seen in RW.
But, of course, we can keep pretending we don't know what're talking about, which case I can simply paste a picture of a tree and we can close the OP's thread as his issue was resolved, use the tree, it's clearly what he was asking for.
Like I said:
Killboxes are man-made, consciously engineered designs to give yourself as much advantage and the opponent as little advantage as possible, to the best of the abilities of the engineer. You did give a great example of the D-day defenses at the beaches, having made a very defensible position with a strategic outlook over the very vulnerable position, ocean and sand, their enemies would emerge from.
Another example is a castle gate, which funnels would-be attackers into a relatively small opening. You have the "open" defense of the port cullis, allowing you to stab attackers with spears from inside the relative safety, and the murder-holes from which archers can shoot arrows from the advantageous high-ground, or throw rocks at them with the natural aid of gravity.
Taking cover behind a tree or a stone just doesn't compare, unless you've meticulously designed for them to be where they are. Sandbag defenses don't truly qualify either, unless you've done something more.
So if we're going to be fully honest about what a killbox is, it's when you've:
- Constructed defenses for your own personnel AND
- Consciously funneled enemies into an area where you intend to kill them AND
- Either chosen- or made sure to strip the environment of as much defenses your enemy could use as possible AND
- Taken as much effort as space allows to give your chosen weapons their optimal ranges and hopefully your enemies their least optimal ranges. Most often utilized by making a firing squad equipped only with Assault Rifles, as it outranges most weapons, and any melee raid would perform laughably bad if your firing squad can fire on those enemies from their max range.
Bonus points for having created stationary weaponry:
- Traps
- Turrets (automated turrets aren't really a thing yet in real life, but manned turrets are)
If you haven't taken these steps, you haven't made designs in the hopes of defeating enemies with the least damage taken to yourself. Thus you haven't made killboxes. At most you've just made or used a slightly more defensible position, but with no second thought towards how to most efficiently defeat the enemy.
2) Killboxes allow enemies to fight back. Most of them actually allows them to fight back more than spamming centurions.
"And for the record, yes, savescumming is perhaps the most common type of exploit too"
It's a killbox then ?
For instance, if you dig into a huge mountain you'll naturally have only a single entrance to your base.
In this case it makes sense to create a narrow reception in which the enemy has no choice other than entering through the front door, the design will look exactly like any "killbox" out there, one hall faced with many turrets/traps and covered positions, but this design doesn't -need- any exploits to function, and if a player was controlling the army, he also wouldn't have much of a choice other than going through the front entrance, not unless he wants to starve to death hitting mountain tiles to find our base, so that one looks exactly like a killbox, and it technically is, but it doesn't have any exploitation involved, that's the actual murky area nobody brings up, not a tree or a river.
Of course, we both know that's not what people mean when they ask for killbox designs either, after all, I bet you won't have a warm reception if you walk into someone else's thread asking for tips and telling them to just pack up and move his base somewhere else where the terrain allows them to set up one without any exploits, when they ask for it, we all know what they are refering to.
- Consciously funneled enemies into an area where you intend to kill them AND
- Either chosen- or made sure to strip the environment of as much defenses your enemy could use as possible AND
- Taken as much effort as space allows to give your chosen weapons their optimal ranges and hopefully your enemies their least optimal ranges. Most often utilized by making a firing squad equipped only with Assault Rifles, as it outranges most weapons, and any melee raid would perform laughably bad if your firing squad can fire on those enemies from their max range."
Where's the exploit in that ? Do people in wars use exploits ?
You really think a player wouldn't be able to EMP your centurions or straight-up orbital beam your entire base ?
Your definitions are simply flawed, which loops us back to the start ; if you talk with some people for a minute, you realize they don't have a definition, so anything they say is just arbitrary. They like their own defense system, they dislike someone else's, they call it an exploit, without, by definition, making any distinction between the two.
You then ignored A and asked for B, I gave you B.
And now you're just skipping through all the times you've been proven wrong, all the definitions used, "definition", the important thing you wanted to settle is something that's not even a part of your recent posts anymore as you no longer care about them, and you're just shooting everywhere trying to see if something sticks, nothing does, so I'm moving on.