A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
- Thread starter Greebo
- Start date
- Status
snickersnack
Well-known member
- Dec 23, 2007
- 7,508
- 1,451
- 113
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Thanks for making this guide. I'm surprised that we didn't already have one.
You are using improper/misleading language:
This is not correct. You mean to say that the total defense will be 1.25 times higher.
The difference is that between "x times higher" and "x times".
300 is 2 times greater than 100, but 300 is 3 times 100.
Maybe I'm being a stickler and most people will know what you mean, but it is inaccurate.
Thanks for making this guide. I'm surprised that we didn't already have one.
You are using improper/misleading language:
This is not correct. You mean to say that the total defense will be 1.25 times higher.
The difference is that between "x times higher" and "x times".
300 is 2 times greater than 100, but 300 is 3 times 100.
Maybe I'm being a stickler and most people will know what you mean, but it is inaccurate.
jjscud
Active member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 3,797
- 165
- 43
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Just a minor point. I believe that the bug was uncovered about 2 years ago (2008) and eth bugging with RWM runewords didn't become common until after 1.11 was released (2005). That's less than 3 years.
Just a minor point. I believe that the bug was uncovered about 2 years ago (2008) and eth bugging with RWM runewords didn't become common until after 1.11 was released (2005). That's less than 3 years.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Points 0-3 look good.
I'm well aware of the forum stance (on point 4), and even though I don't agree with it I do respect it.
I have some difficulty with an actual guide on the matter though. It seems to take it a step up - from accepting, to encouraging -the abuse of ATMA. I find that very problematic.
Points 0-3 look good.
I'm well aware of the forum stance (on point 4), and even though I don't agree with it I do respect it.
I have some difficulty with an actual guide on the matter though. It seems to take it a step up - from accepting, to encouraging -the abuse of ATMA. I find that very problematic.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Thanks for the guide Fabian. I think it helps keep the forum aware of what each term means for those who are unaware of such terms
Thanks for the guide Fabian. I think it helps keep the forum aware of what each term means for those who are unaware of such terms
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
I'll use this thread to ask a quick question that I would like clarified.
I've heard that there is/was a bug, where upping an ethereal armour base item via the cube, IE; upgrading unique armour Skulders Ire from russet armour to Balrog Skin would lose the ethereal bonus, does this have any truth or just a rumour?
I'll use this thread to ask a quick question that I would like clarified.
I've heard that there is/was a bug, where upping an ethereal armour base item via the cube, IE; upgrading unique armour Skulders Ire from russet armour to Balrog Skin would lose the ethereal bonus, does this have any truth or just a rumour?
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Afaik there's no such bug. However when you upgrade any item the defence stat gets rerolled. So you might end up with less defence than you had before upgrading.
Example: eth Vampire Gaze.
Base item is eth Grim Helm: 90-187.5
Upgraded base item is eth Bone Visage: 150-235.5
So say your eth hi-end VG has a base defence of 180. If you upgrade it to a Bone Visage you might roll a lower base defence of 150. Hence it seems as if the armor has downgraded its defence stat or lost its etherealness.
I hope I'm stating this correctly; don't shoot me if I'm wrong. Read this a long time ago off another forum that can't be named.
Afaik there's no such bug. However when you upgrade any item the defence stat gets rerolled. So you might end up with less defence than you had before upgrading.
Example: eth Vampire Gaze.
Base item is eth Grim Helm: 90-187.5
Upgraded base item is eth Bone Visage: 150-235.5
So say your eth hi-end VG has a base defence of 180. If you upgrade it to a Bone Visage you might roll a lower base defence of 150. Hence it seems as if the armor has downgraded its defence stat or lost its etherealness.
I hope I'm stating this correctly; don't shoot me if I'm wrong. Read this a long time ago off another forum that can't be named.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
I feel the same.
@Fabian:
And I do respect this (=I'm not going to leave SPF because of this issue), but I believe one can express a little bit of hesitating. There is no offence, no arguing, no hot blood...... Maybe I just miss in the guide some note like "someone can consider this as cheesy, but many think it's great thing to do" or something in this regard. Otherwise, together with this sentence
I feel the same.
@Fabian:
And I do respect this (=I'm not going to leave SPF because of this issue), but I believe one can express a little bit of hesitating. There is no offence, no arguing, no hot blood...... Maybe I just miss in the guide some note like "someone can consider this as cheesy, but many think it's great thing to do" or something in this regard. Otherwise, together with this sentence
If you need to vent on the subject do it outside. Preferably of your apartment
Otherwise I don't mind a guide on any topic, progress must go on.
- Oct 18, 2004
- 4,342
- 254
- 83
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Let's not mince words here: Making use of this bug is using a third party program to alter an item in a way not possible in the game. It's accepted here because it was used in good faith (meaning it was believed to be a D2 bug) for a long enough period of time that the bell couldn't be unrung.
Now, having it in a guide does make sense since it has the potential to avoid having the same questions asked by a million different people. I'm not sure forum acceptance of a practice requires instructions on how to do something, but I can't think of a compelling reason not to have such a guide either. However, such a guide shouldn't gloss over the ethical concerns, and it shouldn't mangle facts. (See jjscud's post for a more accurate description of the timeline.)
Respecting something doesn't mean that you can't express a contrary opinion. I understand why the decisions that were made were made, and I'm not going to second guess that. (I very likely would have made the same decision.) What I will do is admit I was a bit sad when I came back and found out how common the practice has become even knowing its created by a third party program. Even more horrifying was seeing someone actually request that this "bug" be added to GoMule. Now, the consequences for me are that I'm going to stay strictly self-found since the standard forum acceptable practices aren't how I want to play. That doesn't mean that I can't be a part of the community here and it certainly doesn't mean that my opinion became invalid.
Let's not mince words here: Making use of this bug is using a third party program to alter an item in a way not possible in the game. It's accepted here because it was used in good faith (meaning it was believed to be a D2 bug) for a long enough period of time that the bell couldn't be unrung.
Now, having it in a guide does make sense since it has the potential to avoid having the same questions asked by a million different people. I'm not sure forum acceptance of a practice requires instructions on how to do something, but I can't think of a compelling reason not to have such a guide either. However, such a guide shouldn't gloss over the ethical concerns, and it shouldn't mangle facts. (See jjscud's post for a more accurate description of the timeline.)
Before 1.11, yes this was true. 1.11 fixed that bug. In fact, it was the fix that introduced the bug with using the cube socket recipe on ethereal items.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
OK, first things first:
I wrote this guide because
(1) I think the issue comes back periodically
(2) I think there's some confusion about what "ebugged" really means with respect to what items
It was not the intention of this guide to promote ATMA-ebugging items. Rather it was my intention to take any stigma off the other ebugging, which is perfectly fine. I don't think new members got the distinction.
----------------
@sequana:
When I said
"If you need to vent on the subject do it outside. Preferably of your apartment."
I did not mean to "laugh at all the people who feel uneasy with e-bugging" as you put it. As a matter of fact I am one of those people. I've also just made 4 ATMA-ebugged runewords which make me a hypocrite. I'm OK with that, BTW.
The reason I put in that sentence was to steer of any potential discussion in the thread off the beaten path which leads inevitably to infractions and thread closure. That is all. Clearly, my intent was not well understood, so I will edit that sentence.
I changed that sentence to:
"This is probably not the best place to have a heated discussion on your feelings about this topic. Such discussion has in the past sometimes led to thread closures and infractions, and I'd like to avoid that if possible."
----------
@ SnickerSnack, @jjscud, @maxicek: corrected. Thank you.
----------
@ nubikoen, Sequana, Cattleya
It seems that the guide could use a section on ethics. Would one of you like to write it? You seem to feel more strongly about the subject than I do, I think it would make more sense for you to do it. I'll of course edit it in and give you credit for it.
I think it would go as section 6. Ethics of ATMA bugging
----------
A thought occurred to me:
EDIT: The official response on the thought is a very strong no from the Green Color of this forum, but you may read it anyway.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to introduce new trade tag: [NAEB] or something. As in "No ATMA ethereal bugging". I think that way people who feel strongly on the subject could create a separate trading pool, which perhaps, over time, would grow big enough. I'm suggesting it because the 1.13 LADDER is already such trading pool, so we might as well use the opportunity?
What do you think?
--Greebo
OK, first things first:
I wrote this guide because
(1) I think the issue comes back periodically
(2) I think there's some confusion about what "ebugged" really means with respect to what items
It was not the intention of this guide to promote ATMA-ebugging items. Rather it was my intention to take any stigma off the other ebugging, which is perfectly fine. I don't think new members got the distinction.
----------------
@sequana:
When I said
"If you need to vent on the subject do it outside. Preferably of your apartment
."I did not mean to "laugh at all the people who feel uneasy with e-bugging" as you put it. As a matter of fact I am one of those people. I've also just made 4 ATMA-ebugged runewords which make me a hypocrite. I'm OK with that, BTW.
The reason I put in that sentence was to steer of any potential discussion in the thread off the beaten path which leads inevitably to infractions and thread closure. That is all. Clearly, my intent was not well understood, so I will edit that sentence.
I changed that sentence to:
"This is probably not the best place to have a heated discussion on your feelings about this topic. Such discussion has in the past sometimes led to thread closures and infractions, and I'd like to avoid that if possible."
----------
@ SnickerSnack, @jjscud, @maxicek: corrected. Thank you.
----------
@ nubikoen, Sequana, Cattleya
It seems that the guide could use a section on ethics. Would one of you like to write it? You seem to feel more strongly about the subject than I do, I think it would make more sense for you to do it. I'll of course edit it in and give you credit for it.
I think it would go as section 6. Ethics of ATMA bugging
----------
A thought occurred to me:
EDIT: The official response on the thought is a very strong no from the Green Color of this forum, but you may read it anyway.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to introduce new trade tag: [NAEB] or something. As in "No ATMA ethereal bugging". I think that way people who feel strongly on the subject could create a separate trading pool, which perhaps, over time, would grow big enough. I'm suggesting it because the 1.13 LADDER is already such trading pool, so we might as well use the opportunity?
What do you think?
--Greebo
Last edited:
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
I wouldn't waste too many words on the ethics behind it. I'm not a big fan of ATMA bugging either and I do believe the situation should have been handled differently at the time, but it wasn't up to me and now there really isn't any going back anymore. It has become an accepted method now and I don't think we should burden new members with problems they have no part in, especially when there are older members who show no remorse in using this bug.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that an ethical section shouldn't turn into a discouragement of ATMA bugging. If people don't want others to ATMA bug this should be done via the rules, and not via peer pressure.
I wouldn't waste too many words on the ethics behind it. I'm not a big fan of ATMA bugging either and I do believe the situation should have been handled differently at the time, but it wasn't up to me and now there really isn't any going back anymore. It has become an accepted method now and I don't think we should burden new members with problems they have no part in, especially when there are older members who show no remorse in using this bug.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that an ethical section shouldn't turn into a discouragement of ATMA bugging. If people don't want others to ATMA bug this should be done via the rules, and not via peer pressure.
LozHinge the Unhinged
Active member
- Jan 22, 2007
- 9,183
- 41
- 28
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Thank you for this guide. I now understand the various e-bugging issues and I'm also able now to make informed decisions with regard to ATMA-bugging.
My view on ATMA-bugging isn't relevant here, but I believe that anything that helps forum members make informed decisions with regard to playstyle (and ethics) is entirely a good thing. That is a view I don't mind sharing in this thread
Thank you for this guide. I now understand the various e-bugging issues and I'm also able now to make informed decisions with regard to ATMA-bugging.
My view on ATMA-bugging isn't relevant here, but I believe that anything that helps forum members make informed decisions with regard to playstyle (and ethics) is entirely a good thing. That is a view I don't mind sharing in this thread
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
Fully agree. Keep your guide plain and simple. Give some very basic background, link to Thyiad's official stance post, and if newcomers actually browse the IFT's, they should be more than able to make an informed decision for themselves.
Fully agree. Keep your guide plain and simple. Give some very basic background, link to Thyiad's official stance post, and if newcomers actually browse the IFT's, they should be more than able to make an informed decision for themselves.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
I appreciate the effort you have made attempting to explain how/what each of the various eth-buggings are and whether they are Diablo or ATMA related. There is already a small section in the Accepted Gameplay Rules (AGR), but what Greebo has written here is more comprehensive.
I do understand why you wrote that and I do half-agree with you. However, we REALLY don't like the seed command and there is a (small) guide on how to use it correctly in the AGR.
The term/practices does cause confusion and that isn't helpful for forming an opinion on their gameplay choices. I will note it probably doesn't help when sometimes the SPF (and I include me) isn't as clear as we should be when describing e-bugging. Purely because ATMA bugging is a sensitive issue, and some people do want to avoid actively ATMA bugging I think - on balance - this is a welcome clarification.
Guides should do many things: be clear; give accurate information and allow the reader to make up their mind. I don't have a problem with that. But I think a section entitled "Ethics of ATMA ebugging" is a bit pretentious. This isn't the High Court, it's a games forum.
Whether you choose to ATMA bug or not takes into account the following:
Add in a timeline if you want (Diablo released, ATMA released, realized ATMA bug, now) because that re-inforces the rationle and should probably have been in the rationale posts from the start.
However there's nothing else that can really be said. The information is there; the decision is for the individual at that point.
I know Greebo has already changed it but I don't think he was deliberately trying to be offensive. I think the intent was to head off the inevitable argument on this issue and instead managed to make a poor joke on a sensitive topic which wasn't understood or taken as a joke. We all know how guilty I am of the same thing, so let's leave that as "this is a guide not a commentary" and move on.
Sorry Catt, couldn't resist that after all your threats to taint the non-trade-tagging trade pool. )
No. The SPTF trade pool covers the Accepted Gameplay here. The tags for that are FAM.
More information is requested and encouraged in the Trade Profile section. If you don't want to trade with someone who does a certain practice (EG has ATMA bugged weapons) then the information is there for you to go and look. However, the only way someone is NOT touched by trade or MP is if they have done a complete restart or have been self found pretty much since ATMA arrived. Otherwise I can pretty much guarantee they will have been in contact in some way with ATMA bugging. That is the reality.
If you want a trade tag for no ATMA bugging then it is fair to also have tags for using the seed command; HC to SC transfer; gheeds hotmuling and RWM. That will split the trade pool further.I don't want to see that.
The consensus when we suggested changing from RWM/RRM/CRM to FAM seemed to think it was a good idea to have less tags but ones which meaningful (EG SC/HC and Vanilla/non-vanilla). I don't think anyone wants to revert back to tagging those separately let alone tagging every practice. Frankly, I don't want to see that sort of mess in the SPTF and it was part of the reason I wanted RWM/RRM/CRM changed to FAM.
Probably the best post in this thread. Thank you.
I appreciate the effort you have made attempting to explain how/what each of the various eth-buggings are and whether they are Diablo or ATMA related. There is already a small section in the Accepted Gameplay Rules (AGR), but what Greebo has written here is more comprehensive.
I do understand why you wrote that and I do half-agree with you. However, we REALLY don't like the seed command and there is a (small) guide on how to use it correctly in the AGR.
The term/practices does cause confusion and that isn't helpful for forming an opinion on their gameplay choices. I will note it probably doesn't help when sometimes the SPF (and I include me) isn't as clear as we should be when describing e-bugging. Purely because ATMA bugging is a sensitive issue, and some people do want to avoid actively ATMA bugging I think - on balance - this is a welcome clarification.
Guides should do many things: be clear; give accurate information and allow the reader to make up their mind. I don't have a problem with that. But I think a section entitled "Ethics of ATMA ebugging" is a bit pretentious. This isn't the High Court, it's a games forum.
Whether you choose to ATMA bug or not takes into account the following:
- The rationale of the decision made. sirpoopsalot's post at the time; also my post at the time and a clearer post I made when the subject came up AGAIN. I'm biased but I think that should head off a lot of the "let's just ban it" posts because it should make people think of the consequences.
- The case for: reduces the need to repair low durability items etc
- The case against: it is caused by ATMA not Diablo2 LoD etc
- Some people find it cheesy and won't do it; this is similar to the decisions people have made regarding bringing 1.07 items forward or HF rushing
Add in a timeline if you want (Diablo released, ATMA released, realized ATMA bug, now) because that re-inforces the rationle and should probably have been in the rationale posts from the start.
However there's nothing else that can really be said. The information is there; the decision is for the individual at that point.
Otherwise, together with this sentence, it feels like he laughs at all the people who feel uneasy with e-bugging, as he knows the decision about acceptance has already been made.If you need to vent on the subject do it outside. Preferably of your apartment
Otherwise I don't mind a guide on any topic, progress must go on.
I know Greebo has already changed it but I don't think he was deliberately trying to be offensive. I think the intent was to head off the inevitable argument on this issue and instead managed to make a poor joke on a sensitive topic which wasn't understood or taken as a joke. We all know how guilty I am of the same thing, so let's leave that as "this is a guide not a commentary" and move on.
Yes, so was CRM. (Gotcha!
Sorry Catt, couldn't resist that after all your threats to taint the non-trade-tagging trade pool. ) No. The SPTF trade pool covers the Accepted Gameplay here. The tags for that are FAM.
More information is requested and encouraged in the Trade Profile section. If you don't want to trade with someone who does a certain practice (EG has ATMA bugged weapons) then the information is there for you to go and look. However, the only way someone is NOT touched by trade or MP is if they have done a complete restart or have been self found pretty much since ATMA arrived. Otherwise I can pretty much guarantee they will have been in contact in some way with ATMA bugging. That is the reality.
If you want a trade tag for no ATMA bugging then it is fair to also have tags for using the seed command; HC to SC transfer; gheeds hotmuling and RWM. That will split the trade pool further.I don't want to see that.
The consensus when we suggested changing from RWM/RRM/CRM to FAM seemed to think it was a good idea to have less tags but ones which meaningful (EG SC/HC and Vanilla/non-vanilla). I don't think anyone wants to revert back to tagging those separately let alone tagging every practice. Frankly, I don't want to see that sort of mess in the SPTF and it was part of the reason I wanted RWM/RRM/CRM changed to FAM.
Thank you for this guide. I now understand the various e-bugging issues and I'm also able now to make informed decisions with regard to ATMA-bugging.
My view on ATMA-bugging isn't relevant here, but I believe that anything that helps forum members make informed decisions with regard to playstyle (and ethics) is entirely a good thing. That is a view I don't mind sharing in this thread
Probably the best post in this thread. Thank you.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
I don't think they are really comparable. One changed how the game looks and substituted one color for another. The rune drop chance had nothing to do with the mod so the game mechanics stayed as they were. It was purely a mod to deal with the missing of the game mechanics that HAD took place.
Ebugging changes the game in all it's entirety because everything you do and have done will be affected by the changing of an item via external means. If we try to link it to the above, if you kill faster because you ebugged an item, over time, you are increasing the probability of rune drop chance. So the very same mechanics that the CRM did not change, the ebugging has changed.
I don't want to turn this into a discussion re: CRM's acceptability as very few use it now anyway because Blizzard obviously realised the benefits of making runes more visible but I, for one, see a sharp difference between changing the game and enhancing the way the game is viewed.
Yes, so was CRM. (Gotcha!
I don't think they are really comparable. One changed how the game looks and substituted one color for another. The rune drop chance had nothing to do with the mod so the game mechanics stayed as they were. It was purely a mod to deal with the missing of the game mechanics that HAD took place.
Ebugging changes the game in all it's entirety because everything you do and have done will be affected by the changing of an item via external means. If we try to link it to the above, if you kill faster because you ebugged an item, over time, you are increasing the probability of rune drop chance. So the very same mechanics that the CRM did not change, the ebugging has changed.
I don't want to turn this into a discussion re: CRM's acceptability as very few use it now anyway because Blizzard obviously realised the benefits of making runes more visible but I, for one, see a sharp difference between changing the game and enhancing the way the game is viewed.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
1) That was a joke - as I said in the actual post
2) CRM is a change not possible in Diablo 2 and is made via a source outside of Diablo 2 (IE a response to what Catt wrote)
PM me if you want to discuss this further.
1) That was a joke - as I said in the actual post
2) CRM is a change not possible in Diablo 2 and is made via a source outside of Diablo 2 (IE a response to what Catt wrote)
PM me if you want to discuss this further.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
@Thy, Greebo: Well yea, I've learned already that it's very easy to misunderstand some sentence, usualy the innocent one with smilie. But I'm glad the sentence was changed. Thanks Greebo.
As regards the ethic part, I really didn't mean to discourage anyone. I always support having a choice. Well, it's clear I dislike Atma bug, yet I don't mind really that people use it. The thing is that I meant that some sentence like "Some people really love this cheesy bug, some are more reserved about that. Make your own mind.", in unbiased way of course (....I'm not good in phrasing, so probably not exactly this sentence) can't hurt. It's just my comment. I know I'm a nitpicker with this.
(btw does anyone know saying: The wolf had a feed, but the goat remained whole?)
@Thy, Greebo: Well yea, I've learned already that it's very easy to misunderstand some sentence, usualy the innocent one with smilie. But I'm glad the sentence was changed. Thanks Greebo.
As regards the ethic part, I really didn't mean to discourage anyone. I always support having a choice. Well, it's clear I dislike Atma bug, yet I don't mind really that people use it. The thing is that I meant that some sentence like "Some people really love this cheesy bug, some are more reserved about that. Make your own mind.", in unbiased way of course (....I'm not good in phrasing, so probably not exactly this sentence) can't hurt. It's just my comment. I know I'm a nitpicker with this.
(btw does anyone know saying: The wolf had a feed, but the goat remained whole?)
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
As a newer member of the forum i really appreciate this guide, a lot of times atma bugging and e-bugging are mentioned in threads/posts but i was unaware of all of the types/processes involved so thank you. Regarding ethics i would be wary putting such a post in as it would be almost impossible to avoid bias one way or the other, i feel stating the facts and linking to past discussions is the best way to inform newer members and let them make up their own mind regarding the various bugs.
As a newer member of the forum i really appreciate this guide, a lot of times atma bugging and e-bugging are mentioned in threads/posts but i was unaware of all of the types/processes involved so thank you. Regarding ethics i would be wary putting such a post in as it would be almost impossible to avoid bias one way or the other, i feel stating the facts and linking to past discussions is the best way to inform newer members and let them make up their own mind regarding the various bugs.
Re: A Mini-Guide to Ebugging in Single Player Forum
A relatively common sentiment seems to be that it might be helpful to emphasize the fact people need to make an informed choice about the issue. Since Greebo has already indicated willingness to revise and improve the guide, I took the liberty of typing up a draft of a possible change:
A relatively common sentiment seems to be that it might be helpful to emphasize the fact people need to make an informed choice about the issue. Since Greebo has already indicated willingness to revise and improve the guide, I took the liberty of typing up a draft of a possible change:
Disregard it completely, modify it as you like, incorporate it into the guide, or whatever you see fit.
- Status
