Curse

Gli · Mar 15, 2011, 04:08 PM // 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

But still based on an exploit. They just encouraged their players to exploit a game mechanic to get a title. Debatable, but you can't cancel the past, what's done cannot be undone.

To me, that just means they have not taken actions against it so far, but no reaction doesn't change things. Exploit it was and exploit it is, even if they condone it.

But they did react. They encouraged it by creating an in-game reward specifically for doing the thing. When circumstances change, terminology changes along with it. You don't have to 'cancel the past' to have a sensible view of the present. For example, after the Volstead act was defeated in the 1930s, people stopped referring to the distribution of alcohol as a 'crime'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

"Exploit" is not a technicality here, "Exploit" is an English word.

This IS an exploit, just not one they're dishing out bans for. So I don't see why they should be calling it differently when they finally decide to provide alternative solutions.

Because, if they still call it an exploit after creating a reward specifically for doing it, they're idiots? In a sane environment, something can't be both an exploit and a legitimate, encouraged and rewarded activity. Having a EULA discourage the use of exploits but actively encouraging their use in the game doesn't make sense.

Gill Halendt · Mar 15, 2011, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

But they did react. They encouraged it by creating an in-game reward specifically for doing the thing. When circumstances change, terminology changes along with it. You don't have to 'cancel the past' to have a sensible view of the present. For example, after the Volstead act was defeated in the 1930s, people stopped referring to the distribution of alcohol as a 'crime'.

Ok, I give up. So reactions to things change their names. If you say so...

Destribution of alcohol was:

- Destribution of goods
- Considered and referred as a crime

Death-Levelling was:

- An exploit of a game mechanic (by the very definition of the term "exploit")
- Not considered a bannable offense (a "crime")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Having a EULA discourage the use of exploits but actively encouraging their use in the game doesn't make sense.

Sure thing. Guess what, they finally realized it and introduced a legit alternative to the exploit required. EULA also states that suspensions and terminations are at their discretion and correlated to the magnitude of the infraction -> Exploit ≠ Ban, or people would have been banned for anything derailing from basic game designs, speedbooking included (described as exploitative by themselves). So I really don't know what's the problem in calling things with their names, just because they never considered such an exploit something to ban people for.

*lemming* · Mar 15, 2011, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

But still based on an exploit. They just encouraged their players to exploit a game mechanic to get a title. Debatable, but you can't cancel the past, what's done cannot be undone.

To me, that just means they have not taken actions against it so far, but no reaction doesn't change things. Exploit it was and exploit it is, even if they condone it.

Tanking with Shadow Form is an exploit, too. When will you be condemning all of the players who have directly or indirectly benefited from it?

Lasai · Mar 15, 2011, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Tanking with Shadow Form is an exploit, too. When will you be condemning all of the players who have directly or indirectly benefited from it?

That is not a comparison, shadow form is a skill. An exploit is simply an exploit, standing behind a wall safe from melee and archers while spell casting is an exploit of the AI. Logging into an empty Seaboard outpost and gaining exp just standing at the gate is an exploit of a glitch. Turning in Hammers to gain exp for survivor is an exploit of a poorly designed quest. Running Gayla backwards is an exploit of the quest design. Racking up insane AFK scores in Zos Shiv channel is exploiting the stupid turtles. On and on...

There are a myriad of exploits in this game, even if not officially labeled as such. We all KNOW they are. Even if you do them, you KNOW you are cheesing something...

It is a word used in the language far before pong was released. Exploit is not a term coined for some bannable offense by game companies.

While some like the term "creative use of game mechanics" it is still an exploit in the literal sense.

Gli · Mar 15, 2011, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Ok, I give up. So reactions to things change their names. If you say so...

Destribution of alcohol was:

- Destribution of goods
- Considered and referred as a crime

Death-Levelling was:

- An exploit of a game mechanic (by the very definition of the term "exploit")
- Not considered a bannable offense (a "crime")

If a certain action is the only way to achieve a certain reward, and that reward was specifically created with the single purpose of encouraging that certain action, that action is obviously a valid, proper and encouraged way of playing the game. If it isn't, your game makes no sense. Valid, proper and encouraged ways of playing the game can't be exploits.

It may have been an exploit before there was the LDoA title, but it hasn't been since that time. Because being a valid, proper and encouraged way of playing the game and being an exploit are mutually exclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

EULA also states that suspensions and terminations are at their discretion and correlated to the magnitude of the infraction -> Exploit ≠ Ban, or people would have been banned for anything derailing from basic game designs, speedbooking included (described as exploitative by themselves). So I really don't know what's the problem in calling things with their names, just because they never considered such an exploit something to ban people for.

They never created titles exclusively for any other kind of derailing behavior.

*lemming* · Mar 15, 2011, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasai

standing behind a wall safe from melee and archers while spell casting is an exploit of the AI.

And standing behind a Shadow Form assassin that absorbs unlimited damage while spell casting isn't? Enlighten me.

Lasai · Mar 15, 2011, 07:08 PM // 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

If a certain action is the only way to achieve a certain reward, and that reward was specifically created with the single purpose of encouraging that certain action, that action is obviously a valid, proper and encouraged way of playing the game. If it isn't, your game makes no sense. Valid, proper and encouraged ways of playing the game can't be exploits.

It may have been an exploit before there was the LDoA title, but it hasn't been since that time. Because being a valid, proper and encouraged way of playing the game and being an exploit are mutually exclusive.

They never created titles exclusively for any other kind of derailing behavior.

According to John Stumme.. it was and is an exploit. It is still... not bannable. Not mutually exclusive. It is a description of an action.. not a legal definition. How hard is that to grasp?

Lasai · Mar 15, 2011, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

And standing behind a Shadow Form assassin that absorbs unlimited damage while spell casting isn't? Enlighten me.

If you cannot tell the difference.. you are not capable of enlightenment. Holding aggro and tanking is a universally accepted mechanic. Using wall or terrain exploits against melee mobs is very different. I could go afk and let a charr archer shoot a wall for hours with no damage to my char.. doubt you could do the same with a sin just standing there like a wall.

melissa b · Mar 15, 2011, 07:28 PM // 19:28

In reference to LDOA and death leveling Anet made a mistake and admitted it. "we should not have encouraged such a counterintuitive style of playing" http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Devel...in_Pre-Searing

Anet has been flip-flopping however a nerf has a potential financial benefit

Timeline
Death Leveling provides experience - original mechanic
Update
Death Leveling nerfed - provides no experience
Update
Death Leveling un-nerfed - provides experience
Update
LDOA is added with death leveling the only way to achieve it
Update
Alternative Method to Death Leveling is added to get LDOA
Death Leveling Called an exploit by anet

Future Update???
Death Leveling nerfed a 2nd time provides no experience
People buy Pet Unlocks after no longer being able to death level their pets

Gli · Mar 15, 2011, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasai

According to John Stumme.. it was and is an exploit. It is still... not bannable. Not mutually exclusive. It is a description of an action.. not a legal definition. How hard is that to grasp?

It's very hard to grasp, because it makes no sense.

When you're doing the only thing you can do to earn a reward specifically designed to reward that thing you're doing, you're playing the game as it is meant to be played. Playing the game as it is meant to be played can only be considered to be an exploit in an insane mind. And since I'm not insane, I will never 'grasp' any interpretation that requires me to be insane.

Edit: I completely forgot about death-leveling being disabled at some point, and then re-enabled so people could aim for a new title. That definitely makes it a 'game mechanic by design' from the re-enabling onward, and definitely not an exploit. Thanks Melissa! (and Reformed, a bit earlier in the thread).

*lemming* · Mar 15, 2011, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasai

If you cannot tell the difference.. you are not capable of enlightenment. Holding aggro and tanking is a universally accepted mechanic. Using wall or terrain exploits against melee mobs is very different. I could go afk and let a charr archer shoot a wall for hours with no damage to my char.. doubt you could do the same with a sin just standing there like a wall.

Both depend on the stupidity of the AI to attack something that it's not doing any damage to. I hardly see a difference between the two.

Besides, I was under the impression that GW prided itself on abandoning standard MMO aggro mechanics in exchange for an AI that would actually attack target intelligently. Doesn't twisting the process so that the only target getting attacked is one that is guaranteed to take zero damage seem exploitative at all?

Gill Halendt · Mar 15, 2011, 09:23 PM // 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Tanking with Shadow Form is an exploit, too. When will you be condemning all of the players who have directly or indirectly benefited from it?

So, wait:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Exploit is just what death levelling is. It relied on the exploitation of a game mechanic (the one that governs levelups) for unintended benefits to the user.

Like with many other game exploits that don't involve code bugs but rather abused design flaws or unforeseen solutions - think of 55HP builds, ferrying and such - , they chose not to act against exploiters, making it a non-bannable exploit

When they got the chance, they provided a more legit way to reach the same results, trying to discourage the abuse of such exploit.

That's it, their stance about death-levelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

EULA also states that suspensions and terminations are at their discretion and correlated to the magnitude of the infraction -> Exploit ≠ Ban, or people would have been banned for anything derailing from basic game designs, speedbooking included (described as exploitative by themselves).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

So bannable offenses are entirely at their discretion. If they felt death-levelling was not game-breaking and rather chose to design a title around it and let it go, it's their choice and their faculty to do so.

Wonder why you got the impression I was "condemning" anyone. Thanks for skipping the whole thread and jumping to (wrong) conclusions.

Tom Swift · Mar 15, 2011, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

Both depend on the stupidity of the AI to attack something that it's not doing any damage to. I hardly see a difference between the two.

Besides, I was under the impression that GW prided itself on abandoning standard MMO aggro mechanics in exchange for an AI that would actually attack target intelligently. Doesn't twisting the process so that the only target getting attacked is one that is guaranteed to take zero damage seem exploitative at all?

Both death leveling and SF tanking are now in the game BY DESIGN. As was pointed out, they removed death leveling and then intentionally put it back. They have tweaked and changed SF many times always, in one form or another, making it work as a tanking skill. These are now intentionally introduced elements of game design working exactly as the designers wish them to work. You may disagree with the Dev. design and that is fine. But what you can not call either of these is "exploit."

*lemming* · Mar 15, 2011, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

Wonder why you got the impression I was "condemning" anyone. Thanks for skipping the whole thread and jumping to (wrong) conclusions.

"Exploit" is definitely a bit of a loaded term. Applying it to officially sanctioned activities is going to be carrying with it its negative connotation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Swift

Both death leveling and SF tanking are now in the game BY DESIGN. As was pointed out, they removed death leveling and then intentionally put it back. They have tweaked and changed SF many times always, in one form or another, making it work as a tanking skill. These are now intentionally introduced elements of game design working exactly as the designers wish them to work. You may disagree with the Dev. design and that is fine. But what you can not call either of these is "exploit."

That's exactly what the last three pages of quibbling has been about, hasn't it?

Star_Jewel · Mar 16, 2011, 02:21 AM // 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemming

That's exactly what the last three pages of quibbling has been about, hasn't it?

To the point that I've been having a hard time figuring out exactly what some people's points are.

We seem to be quibbling over semantics and the ethical connotations of the word "exploit." The interesting thing about MMOs is that developers are often blindsided by the ingenuity of their playerbase -- people find absolutely mind-blowing ways to "think outside the box" and push the game mechanics to their limits. I think a lot of players (and maybe even developers?) find that to be part of the fun. The company just has to stay on top of things to keep those "exploits" from removing the challenge or ruining the balance of the game (something which GW has struggled with over the years), while not taking away peoples' choice in playstyle. There need to be various ways to accomplish a task to keep things interesting, whether those routes were initially envisioned or discovered by players along the way. I think it's narrow-minded to say "That's not how the game was designed to be played, therefore it's wrong."

Ultimately it's up to ArenaNet to decide the difference between "creative" exploitive play and "bad" exploitive play and take actions accordingly.

Daesu · Mar 16, 2011, 03:26 AM // 03:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star_Jewel

To the point that I've been having a hard time figuring out exactly what some people's points are.

We seem to be quibbling over semantics and the ethical connotations of the word "exploit." The interesting thing about MMOs is that developers are often blindsided by the ingenuity of their playerbase -- people find absolutely mind-blowing ways to "think outside the box" and push the game mechanics to their limits. I think a lot of players (and maybe even developers?) find that to be part of the fun. The company just has to stay on top of things to keep those "exploits" from removing the challenge or ruining the balance of the game (something which GW has struggled with over the years), while not taking away peoples' choice in playstyle. There need to be various ways to accomplish a task to keep things interesting, whether those routes were initially envisioned or discovered by players along the way. I think it's narrow-minded to say "That's not how the game was designed to be played, therefore it's wrong."

Although the word exploit is generic and can be used in a broad sense, there are legitimate ways to play this game and non-legitimate ways to play this game.

Within the set of legitimate ways to play this game there are AI monster exploits to play PvE. These are legit and not punishable.

Within the non-legitimate ways of playing this game there are bannable exploits and non-bannable exploits. Bannable exploits would be exploting bugs in this game for example, to come up with a dupe hack. Non-bannable exploits would be things like death leveling.

Players can discover legit exploits, but there are also exploits that players have discovered that are not legit. For example the bug that allowed players to transfer post searing items into pre searing. That would be an example of player discovered exploit that is bannable if you have used it before the fix. The dupe exploit that was discovered by players in the past, is another example of a bannable exploit.

Lasai · Mar 16, 2011, 03:49 AM // 03:49

Demanding that Exploit be a narrowly defined term applied only to actionable activities in any online game is simply rationalization for pursuing routes that individuals know are borderline.

The argument is always.. "its in the game, therefore it is by design".

Uh.. sure. I'm sure that the quest designer for the Kathandrax hammer turn in fully recognized and designed the quest for survivor leveling without actually playing that char. It's by design, right?

I'm sure that whoever designed unrestricted group portaling in proph fully meant for the campaign to be finished by doing 6 missions. Yah, it's by design.

I'm sure that whoever designed the quest Service, Practice Dummy meant it to be completed by /resign the instant you load. It's in the game.. therefore, by design, right?

Same with herding pigs for the Alemoot. Why do the other parts, after all, the design is just to put the pigs in the pen. By Design.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a Duck, odds are, it's a duck.. whether it has been officially labeled one by company policy or not.

Nearly every bannable or removed exploit in every game that I can remember at one point was defended as "creative use of game mechanics" and those who used them always had the defense of "it's in the game" and "it hasn't been deemed an exploit yet"

I'm done with the topic. Nothing changes. For some, gamesmanship IS the game.

games·man·ship
noun \ˈgāmz-mən-ˌship\
Definition of GAMESMANSHIP
1
: the art or practice of winning games by questionable expedients without actually violating the rules
2
: the use of ethically dubious methods to gain an objective

Gill Halendt · Mar 16, 2011, 08:04 AM // 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daesu

Although the word exploit is generic and can be used in a broad sense, there are legitimate ways to play this game and non-legitimate ways to play this game.

Within the set of legitimate ways to play this game there are AI monster exploits to play PvE. These are legit and not punishable.

Within the non-legitimate ways of playing this game there are bannable exploits and non-bannable exploits. Bannable exploits would be exploting bugs in this game for example, to come up with a dupe hack. Non-bannable exploits would be things like death leveling.

Players can discover legit exploits, but there are also exploits that players have discovered that are not legit. For example the bug that allowed players to transfer post searing items into pre searing. That would be an example of player discovered exploit that is bannable if you have used it before the fix. The dupe exploit that was discovered by players in the past, is another example of a bannable exploit.

This. Which is pretty much what I've been saying here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

We've already discussed this argument.

When reading EULAs:

Quote:

Abusing game exploits.

Advertising cheats, hacks, and exploits

usually refers to bug exploits. There's no bug involved here, as a "bug" for the developers is a logic or syntax error in the code provoking a glitch, not a design flaw or issue as the derogative use of the term might suggest.

In the Rules of Conduct of most online games (just check World of Warcraft, for example) the difference between the exploitation of a bug (bannable) and exploitation of a design flaw (deprecated, and usually corrected with no sanction for the users) is usually explained, and the different consequences clearly outlined.

I don't know why this is not the case for Guild Wars.

Skyy High · Mar 16, 2011, 05:05 PM // 17:05

O-o

Why is this getting so much attention? Why? They've done tons of stuff in the past and then gone "oops, didn't mean for you guys to do it that way, lemme fix that". Anyone remember the spirit farming of hopping vampires? It was perfectly legitimate, right until they closed it down by nerfing their drops, and that should be the end of the discussion.

Killed u man · Mar 16, 2011, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Conclusion:

The GW EULA and the people enforcing it are inconsistent, something which I've been claiming the past, I don't know 3 years.

Whatever Anet/NCSoft claims the policy is on certain mechanics/exploits is the policy on those mechanics, except their claims hold no value, and they can still ban you while directly contradicting their own rules.