Lo-Fi Games

I just discovered an exploit when training the archery skill.

If you aim at a far away enemy with your crossbow, while hold is active, you will generate unlimited xp with no danger.
You do not go towards the enemy because of hold, and the enemy doesn't come to you if they are far away.
The act of 'aiming' is what seems to be generating the xp

imo it breaks the archery system

I think it is an interesting find for show on how the engine works xp gains.

But I'd point out that a system we can choose to break is not the same thing as a broken system.
As a solo player game we are free to "exploit" whatever we find (break our own toys) or choose higher levels of challenge by ignoring such exploits.
At least if being challenged is what we find more fun, then the clearly only rational choice is to not bother doing the easy cheesy stuff.

Like how anyone can take apart and put back together a rubik's cube. Does that mean it is a broken puzzle game system?
Or is just that people not interested in the challenge of the puzzle have other options for how to play with it?

Exp. should be gained for hitting not for aiming (and there should be crossbow/turret training dummies to hit).
A flawed concept is obviously impossible to avoid. The only "choice" here is not to play the game, fanboy.
A kenshi-like choice would be: Do I hit a dummy or a prisoner/slave for crossbow practice?

Full Frontal Yeti wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:34 pm

But I'd point out that a system we can choose to break is not the same thing as a broken system.
As a solo player game we are free to "exploit" whatever we find (break our own toys) or choose higher levels of challenge by ignoring such exploits.
At least if being challenged is what we find more fun, then the clearly only rational choice is to not bother doing the easy cheesy stuff.

Like how anyone can take apart and put back together a rubik's cube. Does that mean it is a broken puzzle game system?
Or is just that people not interested in the challenge of the puzzle have other options for how to play with it?

Please don't defend bad game design by pretending it is us who choose to break the system/game.

This kind of exploit can also happen automatically without player input. All you need is a character with a ranged weapon set on hold, if he gets attacked and takes down his target he will search for new targets, sometimes even targets that are too far away to actually fire at, and there you go the game exploits itself. It happens with turret guards as well who will on their own target anything hostile within range, even if they can't actually hit the target due to obstacles or shenanigans, they will still fire endlessly at them, generating insane amounts of exp, without need for the player to do anything or "choosing to exploit the game".

It's not us those choose to break the system, its clearly the system that is broken, these things can happen without any player imput, the game exploits itself because its a poorly designed game that causes these situations.

Your Rubik's cube analogy is also wrong, unless players alter things by modding the game or by using something like cheat engine we are not taking the game apart, we are simply playing the game as it was made.

You guys are right on one level, but on another level if you know it's an exploit and your in a single player game and don't want to exploit something just don't do it. Kenshi has a lot of exploits, I don't use them because I just want to play the game, and quite frankly a lot of stuff still needs to be fixed that isn't a player conscious decision to abuse something.

Vandala wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:12 pm

Please don't defend bad game design by pretending it is us who choose to break the system/game.

Game designs are 100% normal to be ones that can't force/prevent all actions they do not intend to be part of the game play.

It is normal. Chess is a game. There is no mechanical rule that prevents any player from moving any piece they want in any way they want to. There was never any rule the prevented any opponent from leaping across the table and smashing their fist into their oppositions face.
They just managed not to do those things all on their own without an explicitly stated rule.

Go on, look at the instructions that come in any chess set. not one rule the explicitly prohibits winning by choke hold tap out.

Like how on the soccer/football filed, not one player has to have their hands amputated before they take to the play field.
Yet somehow they manage not to grab the ball with their hands.

The referee on the field, is not a preventive mechanic.

AII AI in video games are what they are, and it is up to the player to not just cheese them, once their programed limitations are discovered by the player.

Bad design is not the same as, yes every player left all to their own off line in a solo payer PvE only game can just break it like any plastic star wars toy they take fireworks to.
Those toys may not have been designed with fire works in mind, but that sure does seem to be a popular way for a lot of people to decide to play with them.


The real end of it is.
If you are playing a solo player PvE only game.
Then whatever it is you choose to do in that environment, is what you enjoy doing., and is the game you choose to play.
Sense only you choose to do what you choose to do. And if you can't choose to do what you think is most fun, that's not a problem any game can solve for anyone.

Could the xp earning for use of range weapons be done differently?
Sure.
But then if it appears to be functions fine for enough people, then it is i guess.

Again, a game is only "broken" if it can't be played as described. but a game that can be played, that the human player can just willfully decide to break? That's most of the games there are, and your game choices get really narrow if you need a game that you will willfully try to break that manages to prevent you from doing so.

Much like reading a work of fiction you have to choose to willingly participate with the game. And so many game designs do reasonably start from the premise that you the player will willfully follow the given directions of the game. Rather than assume, you the solo player didn't want to play the described game play, but instead wanted to play the game of, see if i can break the described game play.


As i say, the game does not make you do the easy cheesy, and if you don't like it, simply don't do it.
if you can't make yourself not do a thing you do not like,. I'm kinda thinking this issue is not in the game.

The game does by default ship with an editor that allows the player to open and edit stats freely.
Why even do the in game cheesy, if you can just do that?

Full Frontal Yeti wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:12 pm

...

Full Frontal Yeti, please read the posts of the discussion again, your last post does not address anything from my post in any meaningful way, not even the part you quoted from it. You seem to be rather focused on what a player chooses to do when I told you that the game does not require our choices or action to exploit itself in this particular case.

Vandala wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:22 pm

Full Frontal Yeti wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:12 pm

...

Full Frontal Yeti, please read the posts of the discussion again, your last post does not address anything from my post in any meaningful way, not even the part you quoted from it. You seem to be rather focused on what a player chooses to do when I told you that the game does not require our choices or action to exploit itself in this particular case.

I am very sure that this situation is entirely dependent upon the player perpetrating conscientious exploitation choices knowing full well what it is they are willfully choosing to do. They can of course just choose to not do that obvious, removed from world, player exploit.


Check out the original description:

If you aim at a far away enemy with your crossbow, while hold is active, you will generate unlimited xp with no danger.
You do not go towards the enemy because of hold, and the enemy doesn't come to you if they are far away.

See i know full well that that unit AI wants to hit the target, and will on its own, if allowed, move within range of it to do so.
I also know that that unit will not shoot at a target that is out of range on it's own. I the player have to willfully force that situaiotn to happen.
And when I the player notice that my unit is not hitting, due to being too far out of range. Either
A: I move them to be in range, because that is the goal of why i am attacking them to start with., to hit them.
or
B: I willfully make them stay out of range, so that they do not hit a target I have purposefully asked them to shoot at...but apparently not to actually succeed in attacking them.

So in both cases, whatever it is that is happening, is what the player willfully desires to have go on.


the player is free to have their units shot at a target, in order to succeed in attacking it.
But if the player is refusing to do that, I'm kinda thinking it is in fact the player here that has made their own choices.


I mean here i am, i know about this exploit now, and yet i do not find that it has made me begin to have my in world units behave in in world POV irrational ways.

Is anyone standing there shooting at a thing they know full well they can't hit?
Then they must be doing what it is they want to be doing i guess.

now fixed you not longer get exp for just aiming.

swillo wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:00 pm

now fixed you not longer get exp for just aiming.

Wow. just say'n i find all games are whatever it is they want to be. but on this one i'd point out we simply trade one kind of fakery for another form of equally fake fakery.

fake one:
get as good at aiming, hit or miss makes no difference.

fake two:
you only get better at aiming when you hit...begging the question if the first shot missed, how did we make the next shot more accurate?
Kinda can't help but notice IRL it is the missed shot itself that gives us the point of reference to aim better by next time. So does seem to actually in reality improve one's aim, hit or miss.


I'd suggest if we had a design goal of actually more accurately emulate skill improvement, we'd give xp for misses and hits, maybe just not as much xp for the misses as the hits. And maybe a downward curve of diminished xp gains per shot when subsequent shots continue to miss.

In this way the game engine systems of skill improvements are less arbitrary and more working to be emulations.
While at the same time, if we give a rats about some solo player "exploit" for some reason, we are also then preventing a player from just exploiting easy xp.


Just stopping "exploits" with arbitrary mechanics changes is then a game of somewhat arbitrary design goals it would seem.

just say'n

Weighing in, I think the XP should be delivered upon execution of an attack regardless of the success or failure. Simply aiming should not be enough. I'm pretty sure it works like this for the rest of combat XP. You still get XP if you fail in a lot of cases, and that matches actual learning where our mistakes teach us more than our repetitive successes.

As to whether we should fix exploits, one of the things I respect about Kenshi's development is that they fix these things and keep the difficulty level substantial. For this reason I have always explored and fully reported all exploits I've found in this game, and over the years I've found many. I sometimes miss the riches that could be gained stealing blueprints and selling them back for full-value.

Berzerker Jay wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:52 am

Weighing in, I think the XP should be delivered upon execution of an attack regardless of the success or failure. Simply aiming should not be enough. I'm pretty sure it works like this for the rest of combat XP. You still get XP if you fail in a lot of cases, and that matches actual learning where our mistakes teach us more than our repetitive successes.

As to whether we should fix exploits, one of the things I respect about Kenshi's development is that they fix these things and keep the difficulty level substantial. For this reason I have always explored and fully reported all exploits I've found in this game, and over the years I've found many. I sometimes miss the riches that could be gained stealing blueprints and selling them back for full-value.

I got a particular POV on "exploits."
I'm a bit of a, tabulate ALL the data kinda person.

So from my own POV, if a game comes by default out of the box asking if i want to play the game or run the editor.
And that editor it comes with by default, gladly opens up any save file and gladly edits anything the player wishes, feel free.

What exactly is an 'exploit" inside that game then?
The game itself already said in no uncertain terms to the player: edit your own save file with my own provided utility all you want.

So getting a toon to get more xp faster, inside the game engine...is what besides a waste of time, compared to doing what the game gives you to do by default in the editor? You want that xp right now real fast? Why are you futzing around with an exploit? The game editor will easily quickly let you do that already.

And again another addition to this is:
If it is a solo player game, why would i care about there being some out of context exploit in the game if I do not find doing it fun(xp faster than game defaults seem t provide)? If it is not fun to just make a toon stand still and shoot at a thing they never hit to grind out xp, then
A: why would you do that?
and
B: why would you care if anyone else was doing that?



So just say'n from my own POV a mechanic of: xp gains for shooting at any target hit or miss same all the time.

It is a very simple system but i find it works just fine.
The combo of mechanics are:
the AI unit will, if allowed automatically move to be in range of the target.
So the only way to just 'exploit' xp gains is a very forced willful choice of the player. And importantly, lands outside of any in world natural behavior.

A player doing weird odd mechanically prodding purposeful actions, is not in lore playing this game and so we're not as designers concerned about that player's "immersion." They were not trying to have it in the first place, they were explicitly not having it in order to make the choices they were making for the actions they took. Which is fine, we can leave them to do the things they obviously just find fun to do. It is a toy, it is for entertainment purposes and if they are entertained, then we as designers are, mission accomplished.

Meanwhile a player that only behaved, in world lore rationally is holding onto that immersion POV and is trying to play it as it presents itself. And they are then very unlikely to discover this xp gains situation, because they are not shooting, holding position and checking their xp gains bar as it goes. they notice the shots are missing, and their goal is to hit, so they do what that takes to make happen. And so they too are making the choices and taking the actions in order to have their fun.

if both are having their own fun, and each has no power in the game over the other. Then there is, from my POV, nothing here to be changed or "fixed."

The under the hood system is sufficient for the job. It is just labor time costs to make such changes, relative to notions of "stopping exploits."


Though again importantly, the design direction is everything.
If the direction is, a quality detailed emulation of human skill devlopemnt, that'd be one thing to aim at. And that direction should direct what kind of designs we are willing to implement or not.
But just shutting down arbitrary exploits", with seemingly arbitrary design choices that seek nothig other than ending one exploit after the other as unrelated things. Then we probably start to lose a sense of what the actual intended end goals of the design ought to be providing.

That's a cool personal philosophy, bro, and the game already exists in such a way that yes you can use the game editor if that's the way you personally wish to play.

That's got little to do with honing a game system so it functions in an optimal way, which is what attending to exploitable flaws in the system's mechanics is for. This is an instance of the latter, and I don't know if your very long argument actually attends to that this game has been developed on the basis of players reporting bugs and ways to improve the game, as well as the ways in which the game's mechanics are not functioning as they are supposed to or are otherwise being exploited in some way. My own history with this game's development has actually involved playtesting new mechanics heavily to find and report the exploits, so there's that.

If your personal philosophy has you wanting to nerf the game, I suppose you are quite free to use the game editor to create a mod to do accomplish that nerfing. A lot of us appreciate Kenshi for its challenge, and really hope it doesn't become just another nerfed game with minimal playability because its challenges can be overcome in a heartbeat.

Can you briefly explain how you believe applying your personal philosophy that a game should not fix its exploits will benefit the game itself, and not just your urge for exploit-based fast-play of a game meant to be challenging?

And can we also do away now with pretending that the term, "exploit," is somehow vague in its meaning only because you are choosing to interpret it vaguely? I can accept that you want to perceive such ambiguity, but I have to admit to not really wanting to argue that point. It's a term heavily used in gaming, and its meaning is unambiguous in this context. I believe you know full well what we mean when we're talking about it, too -- your arguments suggest as much.

I noticed same thing with turrets and turret exp - my turret guy was 'aiming' but not shoting just sitting on turret and ... aiming somewhere, i even couldnt find his target, and turret exp was counting.