Having any bug dissolves the projects worth, it can give a player the impression that your lazy and this game just isn't worth his time.

So no, there is no such thing as a worthless bug, a bug is a bug, and they should all die!.

~Texter

I think you're a little bit confused on the differences between "bugs", "exploits", and "tactics".

"Bugs" are software errors which either prevent something from working or allow something to work when it shouldn't. Bugs are often deadly to a program because they can make things happen at inappropriate times, thereby causing a basic domino effect which can eventually create a huge swarm of proc crashes. "Bugs" always involve some system in the game which was designed to work but is failing somehow.

"Exploits" are oversights on the part of the game developers where a feature was implemented but not fully restricted, allowing users to utilise that feature in ways which are not kosher. Exploits are different than bugs in that an exploit is a lack of code, where a bug is code which doesn't work. Examples include talking to the same person millions of times over in order to get many duplicates of an item.

"Tactics" are exploits which are believed to be acceptable by the game's developers. In most games -- especially multiplayer games -- developers aren't stupid and understand that any "tactic" can allow a player an advantage over the rest, thereby upsetting the delicate balance of the game. Most strategy wargamers despise this viewpoint, however, and regard almost all exploits as fair tactics.


Whatever you do, never remove a feature which provides no productive gain yet which exists purely by accident. For example, the reason I stopped playing Battlecruiser Millenium and started hating Derek Smart is because in one version, he destroyed one of the best redeeming qualities of the game: the ability to transport your prisoners to the surface and execute them. This was because prisoners could be ordered around your ship like regular crew. He decided that allowing prisoners to be ordered around the ship made no sense (a decision that itself makes no sense, since I could order a prisoner to do whatever the hell I wanted him to if I was pointing a gun in his direction), and removed the feature, thereby eliminating a massive portion of the fun of the game. A wiser course of action would have been to make prisoners require marines to accompany them while you order them about, and to give them a chance of escaping from the marines and running loose on your ship again.

I agree with the sentiment behind your sentiment, but not the sentiment itself. I'd say that such accidental features should be examined on their own merits, the same as intentional ones. One that's truly silly or out of place can destroy the character of a game.

[Broad reply to both DarkView and Lexy]

I didn't explicitly say to "upgrade" an unintentional feature to an intentional feature, but I did intend for that course of action (see my example). Everything needs to be "fixed" somehow. Just make sure you don't destroy a good feature while eliminating a bad feature.

Let me guess, you work for Microsoft, right?