New Duelling Glitch! Look Out. Lost 150M!

[stonewall337]

Losing potential profit=Loss. If I had something I was going to sell for 200 bucks and a friend broke it, I lost 200 bucks. Logic.

 

Losing potential profit = losing potential profit. If you had something you were going to sell for 200 bucks and a friend broke it, you lost the potential to earn 200 bucks. Logic.

 

Does it really matter whether he used the term "lost" correctly or not? Because of the glitch he lost out on a VERY good chance of winning 150M.

 

The point is the glitch. It really is bad that with every other update you have to worry about potential glitches at arena. Thanks for the warning.

 

Pretty sure that's what everyone already said :P No one is disagreeing with you.

 

No, you are wrong. You would have had that 200 dollars, the deal was done. The item was broken, you lost the potential profit, which is = profit. That's similar to someone skipping out on rent, its not money in your hands, no, but its money owed you, money you are entitled to, and its still wrong. Simple logic. The step between this type of potential profit and actual profit is more one of cheating, here, then anything else.

 

I will agree, in some cases losing potential profit is only POTENTIAL, (Which was your point, not mine). In this case, however, and in the case I used to illustrate, its really profit, before you have the money in your hands, but money you would have otherwise had. You are trying to use equivocation to prove a point, but since equivocation is a fallacy, it doesn't work logically. Use the term in the correct, and in a similar manner to that which I use it if you want to have discourse, otherwise you'll be unable to discourse on similar grounds.

[Kimberly]

No, you are wrong. You would have had that 200 dollars, the deal was done.

 

In both what happened here and the example you gave, the deal wasn't done because the funds didn't exchange hands. That point was never reached, because something happened before to prevent it - your friend broke your shit, a person abused a glitch to end the duel. There was a period of time where anything could have still happened...say the glitcher got two lucky hits and the TC hit zeros, or your seller backed out of the deal. How is that equivocation? How is that not a logical conclusion?

 

Meh.

[stonewall337]

No, you are wrong. You would have had that 200 dollars, the deal was done.

 

In both what happened here and the example you gave, the deal wasn't done because the funds didn't exchange hands. That point was never reached, because something happened before to prevent it - your friend broke your shit, a person abused a glitch to end the duel. There was a period of time where anything could have still happened...say the glitcher got two lucky hits and the TC hit zeros, or your seller backed out of the deal. How is that equivocation? How is that not a logical conclusion?

 

Meh.

 

In my example there was no chance of a sale not being conducted outside of exterior, negative influences. In other words, it was a "sure thing" except for these outside factors negatively influencing events. In yours, there is a possibility in normal interactions, excluding but not precluding negative external factors. Different types, different examples, different definitions. Equivocation. Also way to exclude the rest of the argument where I explained (already) why you were incorrect.

[timmmmm83]

Nitpicking at its best again. If you want to discuss the semantics of the english language, open a new thread. Don't bother the rest.

 

@OP: Thanks for the heads up! I'll keep away from duel arena until it is patched.

[gspbeetle]

It is like running away from a business contract. Let say your boss decides not to pay up and runs away, the wage you are suppose to be getting is legally yours but in account he just owes you and is (probably) lost forever as bad debt.

[Ambler]

It's only been properly publicesed after this update, so most people assume this has something to do with it. The only uses I can think of would be unfreezing yourself in PvP fights. Not really much else. (This is just theory, no idea how it works :lol:)

[Druvovic]

 

Does it really matter whether he used the term "lost" correctly or not? Because of the glitch he lost out on a VERY good chance of winning 150M.

 

The point is the glitch. It really is bad that with every other update you have to worry about potential glitches at arena. Thanks for the warning.

 

Pretty sure that's what everyone already said :P No one is disagreeing with you.

All I pointed out was that the first ~6 or so posts missed the main point.

[Kimberly]

In other words, it was a "sure thing" except for these outside factors negatively influencing events.

 

Okay, but that's not what you posted, just what you assumed. But...whatever. >_>'

 

It is like running away from a business contract. Let say your boss decides not to pay up and runs away, the wage you are suppose to be getting is legally yours but in account he just owes you and is (probably) lost forever as bad debt.

 

That's a good metaphor for it.

[deyan2]

Point is, if you win you win nothing, if you lose you lose quite some thing.

So yes, this is a scam, very annoying, so sad Jagex can't make things bugfree :(...

[Thorgmir]

Suppose the OP and the glitcher staked twice. They have equal stats and we would expect them to split stakes evenly. The first time, the glitcher beat him fair and square, without abusing any glitch, and won 150M. In the rematch, the OP is doing much better, and is about to win the 150M back when the glitcher force exits the duel. What should have been a 1-1 match becomes a 1-0 match, and the glitcher is up 150M. The glitcher has unfairly gained 150M from the OP, but where did he get it? When he fairly won the first duel? No. That was a risk the OP took, and he was prepared to lose it. Rather, the the loss came when the glitcher prevented him from winning his money back. You can argue the semantics here all you want... but this was undeniably a real loss.

[Assume Nothing]

I'd hardly say you lost anything.

You had 800m

Staked 150m

Pouch said 650m

At the end you have 800m still.

Sure you didn't get the winnings, but you didn't win as the duel didn't end properly.

 

Not getting winnings = losing 150M

 

It depends how you define the term 'losing'. You've lost what was likely to be yours, but it wasn't within your possession, so you could only argue that you've lost a potential 150m. It does appear to be an unnecessary exaggeration/distortion of the truth.

 

@Thorg - It's non-applicable here, so what relevance does that anecdote have?

[Thorgmir]

 

@Thorg - It's non-applicable here, so what relevance does that anecdote have?

 

Non-applicable? Are you saying there's a difference between what happened to the OP and what wold have happened had he fairly lost a duel beforehand?

[asfcjfdyitfhglh]

lol I know how this is done :lol:

 

1. Its NOT new

2. Its fairly easy (well for experienced bug abusers, on this forum id say only brunokiller qualifies)

3. its not Squeal of fortune lol

 

 

Wouldn't be surprised if this was their way of making less people stake

 

Nope the specific method they did for it was very useful for lots of stuff I will be very sad to see it go

 

Oh you know it? Why not help everyone out by reporting it to Jagex and telling them how it works?

[Platinum_Myr]

Why would I do that? They aren't paying me, and its not like these are simple bugs to find. Some of them take 100's of hours to find and Jagex has detection systems that eventually get them patched regardless.

 

Choosing not to report the issue only makes the problem worse. Correctly reporting bugs leads to faster solving of bugs overall.

[brunokiller]

Why would I do that? They aren't paying me, and its not like these are simple bugs to find. Some of them take 100's of hours to find and Jagex has detection systems that eventually get them patched regardless.

 

Choosing not to report the issue only makes the problem worse. Correctly reporting bugs leads to faster solving of bugs overall.

 

You seem to think that bugs actually get patched when you report them. I used to sometimes report bugs once they became a bit leaked and it still took months.. Granted, they weren't game breaking, but still..

 

I remember when a friend reported a bug about corp not attacking back, they quit for a year and it was still working when they came back.

Edited March 2, 2012 by brunokiller

[Platinum_Myr]

You seem to think that bugs actually get patched when you report them. I used to sometimes report bugs once they became a bit leaked and it still took months.. Granted, they weren't game breaking, but still..

 

I remember when a friend reported a bug about corp not attacking back, they quit for a year and it was still working when they came back.

 

I never said that reporting it will fix the issue. I said *not* reporting it will delay the developers from discovering the glitch. It takes time, effort, and energy to fix bugs and glitches. It isn't a magical thing where a programmer waves his/her wand and says "FIXED!". They have to figure out what is going on under what circumstances, and why. Someone has to have time and know-how to solve the issue. They have to be able to reproduce the issue on their test machines. However, if *no one* has reported the bug yet, and they don't know about it, then not reporting the bug implies they won't fix it.

 

 

EDIT:

Aaand I can understand not reporting a bug for other reasons. But I'm just saying reporting a bug allows them to know it exists in some cases when they wouldn't know otherwise.

[brunokiller]

@ ring world that isn't patched lol

 

but theres lots of reasons why not to help out Jagex even if you want a bug patched

Such as getting reset for a few 100 mil after telling them how to fix something (which due to my pro skills, hasn't been reborned yet)

[PNAD]

I re-uploaded the video and editted it so there's no profanity. Sorry lads, didn't mean to offend.

[Patr1ck]

0day refers to a whole new bug style that was previously unheard of

 

 

What? The term Zero Day simply refers to a vulnerability that the developers are unaware of, being exploited as soon as it is found. Most rogue hacking in the real world consists of this. It's not really a style as you refer to it.

[Zerker_Jane]

Owned.

[999134]

I think another bug might have come around with this update, spent 5 minutes at duel arena there where people spamming "do not stake glitch!" "player x is glitching, weapon on in box@@@".

 

Seems there is another glitch letting you wield rapier inside a box. (have not seen it myself though) Thought it believable as no one was staking over 1m boxing.

 

 

on logging in saw this

:o

[Nash]

Yep they would use the wheel of failtune to use previously set staking terms from the last duel (one with their friend) and go into a boxing match and be able to use anything and everything (again, because the rules theyre under are the ones from the previous settings) while the new guy has to box and cant move, etc. It was a nightmare, lost a more than I want to say. The guy who glitched me now has 9bil though. Jagex will stick to their policy about how "we never return goods from scams" even though theyre completely to blame for this because they never test their shit.

 

Was a fun day... not.

[Nash]

already did, but I dont encourage breaking rules so I cant tell you. shame shame.

 

EDIT: the method didnt have to do with the xlog either.

[Piu]

I don't get it, why are people arguing on the OP's wording more than the real point of this thread?

 

Anyway, this Squeal of Fortune update is still pretty fun to mess around with bugs.

[Nash]

The bugs from the wheel are more fun than the actual wheel itself. Just got a guy into the duel arena fighting area by himself. No countdown, nobody to fight... he had to xlog just to get out lol.