Curse

high priestess anya · Jan 14, 2008, 12:08 AM // 00:08

you guys get the point, he doesnt. they can ban us although not for exploiting. they have the power to do as they wish i agree but to be banned for apparently exploiting something which holds no personal benefits..... is not exploiting.
ban me for being out of bounds? fair enough..lifetime ban....harsh as hell...calling it exploiting...WRONG.....

Jake_Steel · Jan 14, 2008, 12:08 AM // 00:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

Anya, I think the point jake is attempting to make is that whether or not what is true or untrue isn't significant to what decision Anet makes...things that may be true in the real world or anywhere else don't apply here...It's Anets ballgame and you can choose to abide by their rules or not to play. Simple as that.

That is exactly my point! Dictionary.com, Wiki, even Merriam bloody Webster do not get to decide what defines an exploit in this case. Anet, and Anet alone, are the arbiters of your fate and the definition of what an exploit is within the world of Guild Wars.

Puritans Aid · Jan 14, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

A net has to stop calling it exploiting. MAny people where banned that did not get personal gain from this, thusly not fitting that definition of exploiting.

The OTHER deffinition, if you look on wiki, is a hack. so your either saying we had profit gain, or hacked. In a lot of cases, neither of these things happened, so the word EXPLOITING, simply doesnt fit.

Find a word that does fit, and makes us have broken the EULA, or unban those of us who didnt.

Mickey · Jan 14, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake_Steel

That is exactly my point! Dictionary.com, Wiki, even Merriam bloody Webster do not get to decide what defines an exploit in this case. Anet, and Anet alone, are the arbiters of your fate and the definition of what an exploit is within the world of Guild Wars.

That's what we get for signing the EULA. Power to Anet to click the Ban key on their keyboard to x number of highlighted account names. Lol, companies these days, I liked it when we had companies like Enron

Edit: Sort of a one liner, I will add more.

http://www.petitiononline.com/unban117/petition.html

I don't know if this is against the rules, to post a petition like this, if it is, someone, a Mod, please tell me so I can delete this post.

Actually, can I make a request to Inde, maybe put that website on the first page, so we can have a civilized petition to Anet. It's fine if you don't, you guys are the mods.

Jake_Steel · Jan 14, 2008, 12:14 AM // 00:14

Quote:

Exploit: An exploit (from the same word in the French language, meaning "achievement", or "accomplishment") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that take advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerized). This frequently includes such things as gaining control of a computer system or allowing privilege escalation or a denial of service attack.

You don't have to benefit in anyway for software to be exploited. By going to the outpost, you exploited the game. There is no doubt, no denying it. You can fool yourself but the reality is, the game was exploited. If you've been in the outpost you exploited the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by high priestess anya

lol your funny...
ANET's definition of exploit can be no different than anyone elses... otherwise we gunna have get anet to make a whole new dictionary arent we?

Anet's definition of exploit can certainly be different than yours or mine. However, their definition of exploit is completely within the realm of generally accepted meaning for the word exploit.

Mathman · Jan 14, 2008, 12:15 AM // 00:15

The fact of Anet saying that this ban was because of 2 reasons, the first one abuse of an exploit, and second, economy reasons, first of all lets have a little math lesson. Starting by a quote made by the spokesperson of ANET:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Each appeal will be read by the lead of the Support Team in either NA or EU. No one is being ignored; no appeal is being automatically rejected; everyone will have his/her chance to explain the circumstances. Even the person who entered the area 634 times.

Now let's start the lesson by following the "process" used to do this exploit quoting Mickey, so if ANET and/or GW GM's Team/Support, is counting each time you land in that outpost, it'd mean that for each succesful, "Exploited Run" you'd need to land 3 times at least on this outpost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey

Well, 1. Complete all areas first 2. Either A. Go to Guild Hall and get Ferried or B. Resign then go to Guild Hall and get to outpost (not confirmed, friend told me then leprekan said it here 3. Kill Mallyx 4. Get reward inside the mission 5. Ferrier goes to the guild hall 6. Other party members get quest 7. Go to Guild Hall 8. Ferrier takes you to the outpost 9. Ferrier gets quest 10. People go back to guild hall, to pick up the ferrier 11. Back to outpost 12. Repeat.

3 times per run. And if Anet is running their bans off "profit" rather than "times accessed outpost" we will be seeing a lot of unbans next week.

Now the funny stuff, according to what we read, and what's been running in this post and the Forum itself, all the players were banned due to economy issues as a result of the abuse of an exploit, now taking into consideration both quotes, 634 times some player landed on the outpost, here comes the juicy math, and the process requires you to land 3 times per each successful "exploit", now, 634 times divided by 3, gives us, 211 "exploited runs", which would mean on a technical point of view s/he has 211 full gemsets, which would give that player a total amount of 14 Armbraces of Truth, wow..., s/he is rich, isn't s/he?, as a common, regular player of GW, I can tell you, he has more than what I have, indeed, but... I have a concern about this, My question is how is this affecting the economy on GW, lets be a little further on the math...

lets say that exact same player did the exact same "exploit" with his same team 634 times, that would mean that 7 more ppl have 14 more ambraces each, that would mean they together have 98 Armbraces, wow..., quite a bunch, huh?, well, it comes to my attention that number, 98 armbraces, wow they are all rich and wealthy, or, are they?

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...0241925&page=2

Wait a minute, but what are you telling me?, are you saying they didn't do something wrong, no, they did!, was it greed?, yes, but, how come people have 1500 armbraces and more to buy something without even blinking?, Duping, buying gold, uber-leet-players?, its not for me to decide... but think about this as a reminder of an sub-existing economy, where yes, players did wrong, but is it that bad that even with 98 armbraces, you can't even compete for a bid like that one...

Up tou you to decide...

Mathman

Mickey · Jan 14, 2008, 12:19 AM // 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathman

The fact of Anet saying that this ban was because of 2 reasons, the first one abuse of an exploit, and second, economy reasons, first of all lets have a little math lesson. Starting by a quote made by the spokesperson of ANET:

Now let's start the lesson by following the "process" used to do this exploit quoting Mickey, so if ANET and/or GW GM's Team/Support, is counting each time you land in that outpost, it'd mean that for each succesful, "Exploited Run" you'd need to land 3 times at least on this outpost.

Now the funny stuff, according to what we read, and what's been running in this post and the Forum itself, all the players were banned due to economy issues as a result of the abuse of an exploit, now taking into consideration both quotes, 634 times some player landed on the outpost, here comes the juicy math, and the process requires you to land 3 times per each successful "exploit", now, 634 times divided by 3, gives us, 211 "exploited runs", which would mean on a technical point of view s/he has 211 full gemsets, which would give that player a total amount of 14 Armbraces of Truth, wow..., s/he is rich, isn't s/he?, as a common, regular player of GW, I can tell you, he has more than what I have, indeed, but... I have a concern about this, My question is how is this affecting the economy on GW, lets be a little further on the math...

lets say that exact same player did the exact same "exploit" with his same team 634 times, that would mean that 7 more ppl have 14 more ambraces each, that would mean they together have 98 Armbraces, wow..., quite a bunch, huh?, well, it comes to my attention that number, 98 armbraces, wow they are all rich and wealthy, or, are they?

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...0241925&page=2

Wait a minute, but what are you telling me?, are you saying they didn't do something wrong, no, they did!, was it greed?, yes, but, how come people have 1500 armbraces and more to buy something without even blinking?, Duping, buying gold, uber-leet-players?, its not for me to decide... but think about this as a reminder of an sub-existing economy, where yes, players did wrong, but is it that bad that even with 98 armbraces, you can't even compete for a bid like that one...

Up tou you to decide...

Mathman

Lol, did you make that guru name just for this post? That's great, lol.

Seriously, Anet needs to sort out their priorities. All the armbraces made from this exploit come to about...wait for it.....1/4 of the amount that 1 of the Dupers has. Tell me which RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed up the economy more? This exploit, or the duping. Now, tell me which incident had more bans? This exploit, or the duping. Thought so.

Oh, last thing. Tell me which, exploit or dupe, where people got away with it, had more funds than they did before. Infact, tell me which one where people actually got away with it.

Mickey · Jan 14, 2008, 12:28 AM // 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuthroat Dibbler

As I understand it, if it is found you have Alt accts it doesn't actually matter where they are, you're banned period. its YOU they ban, so any account associated with YOU in that manner gets banned. Hence all the ban by IP email etc etc provisos in the EULA

So, thanks for giving ANet aheads up theres more yet to be banned.

I meant the duping. Duh, the original dupers are still out there. There is no one who accessed that outpost out there.

Edit: Oh, you meant those two guys, my bad, too, sorry.

Mac Sidewinder · Jan 14, 2008, 12:30 AM // 00:30

To the folks that keep saying that they have alts in that outpost, I really wouldn't advise Anet that you have an alt account. Doesn't the EULA state that if you get banned that you can't play on an alt account either? Seems to me that you are just asking for that account to be banned too.

I can just see it now at Anet: Look Joe (who was banned) just told us of another alt account he has ----- ban it too!

If I were you and you wanted to keep it, simply move it out of the outpost and take your chances. If you have already been there more times than Anet will allow it is just going to be banned anyway so you have nothing to lose (Unless logging onto that account counts as another visit and it puts you over the limit).

Puritans Aid · Jan 14, 2008, 12:34 AM // 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuthroat Dibbler

As I understand it, if it is found you have Alt accts it doesn't actually matter where they are, you're banned period. its YOU they ban, so any account associated with YOU in that manner gets banned. Hence all the ban by IP email etc etc provisos in the EULA

So, thanks for giving ANet aheads up theres more yet to be banned.

edit: sorry forgot to include who post was targetted at, my bad.

So if i got buy a new account, and play another 2 years without breaking a single rule, and they found out it was me, the would ban it anyway/

GOD I hope thats not true.
Puritan

vaxmor · Jan 14, 2008, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathman

Wait a minute, but what are you telling me?, are you saying they didn't do something wrong, no, they did!, was it greed?, yes, but, how come people have 1500 armbraces and more to buy something without even blinking?

The slippery logic implied by this sophistry is that 'As long as you run spl0itz which gain you less than 1500 armbraces you wont get banned'.

If this ridiculous policy were to be even contemplated we would have a 'Free For All' on the GW servers, it would be like a convention of spl0iterz-r-us.

After one hundred pages of this - denial, anger, depression and bargaining - it really would be nice if those spl0iterz arrived at Acceptance.

Cuthroat Dibbler · Jan 14, 2008, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

wow they really dont want my money then.

Puritan

No they don't.

But in the interests of the broader discussion and not wanting to be personal...

No, they don't want money from people who have previously attempted to commit a bad against them. Any reasonable person would feel the same.

lacasner · Jan 14, 2008, 12:43 AM // 00:43

I really just have to add, to the above, it is really difficult to explain things to people in this thread anymore, its hopeless.

that the analogy above is flawed, as you didn't merely get a ticket, you got your license to drive revoked, bad comparisons FTL.

Mickey · Jan 14, 2008, 12:45 AM // 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creeping Carl

Oh so now the devs are the ones who are to blame now? Geez, now you people have thrown out every excuse and blame out there. And you wonder why people can't see your side?

I would love to see what you would say if you were in our position. Since your personality is just wonderful already. What if you did 2 runs, decided something was fishy, and still got banned. And you got 3 emails from Support saying that your account is terminated, and you will never see it again. How would you react?

Hey, as long as there is evidence to prove something, I am inclined to believe it. I asked for evidence, not flames. But thanks anyway.

high priestess anya · Jan 14, 2008, 12:49 AM // 00:49

lifetime ban is unacceptable regardless...
stripping a persons chars of everything, resetting all titles and giving them a 4 month ban is severe also...and would have the same effect...
the main hacker deserves lifetime ban not the guys who profitted from this. they deserve to be punished but lifetime is extreme
oh btw my brother has an account and he is playing on it right now...

Cuthroat Dibbler · Jan 14, 2008, 12:51 AM // 00:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by one O one

my wife and son both play this game as the same IP as I do. should their account be banned too?

This would be one of the harder one's to sort out from ANet's point of view, but "technically"....yes they would all be banned. Draconian? yes. Fixable? possibly. Who's to say you dont then jump on your spouses acct and use that do continue whatever it was that got you into trouble in the first place.

Note: Im generalising not being personal

DivineEnvoy · Jan 14, 2008, 12:56 AM // 00:56

Here's my interpretion to what the thread is talking about at the moment:

1. There's one guy who is trying to get Anet to test his method to access this forbidden town without using a hack, so that the amount of punishment to some of the 117 people can be lifted or decreased.

2. People are now debating whether it is appropriate to have permanent bann as a universal punishment to all the 117 people, as there is a significant difference between the number of abuses each person conducted.

What annoys me about this thread is that people are continue trying to flame Anet and telling us that they are going to WoW. First of all, flaming Anet will not help anyone, and it will not make the current situation go any faster. Secondly, for god's sake, this is a Guild Wars forum, and this is a thread about an exploit in a game called Guild Wars, quit talking about World of Warcraft.

one O one · Jan 14, 2008, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake_Steel

No, they do not have to. The EULA everyone agrees to says so.

And the UA states that if you do not agree with these terms simply return the product to the store for a full refund(within a set time frame). But A Net did change the rules in the middle of the game didn't they? So how could we not agree to the UA after months of playing.

Chicken Ftw · Jan 14, 2008, 01:00 AM // 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey

What if you did 2 runs, decided something was fishy, and still got banned. And you got 3 emails from Support saying that your account is terminated, and you will never see it again. How would you react?

I'd rage for about two hours, maybe send off an angry email or two, then realize I'm raging about a game, and go drink some beers with friends to relax. 4k hours played across 4 campaigns, meh. It was a good run, life goes on.

Antheus · Jan 14, 2008, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey

I JUST SAW on the petition that someone said that one of the ArenaNet Devs leaked it. Does anyone have confirmation of this, or even evidence? That would possibly be the most ironic thing I have ever encountered in my short life.

And Santa lives in the North Pole - petition says so. They even have pictures.

The remaining 3 of you arguing here, starting petitions, hiring lawyers, etc. Every post you make kills the chances about Anet changing anything about their decision.

Two things will happen out of this: Anet will stop commenting and discussing this. And possibly secondly, ban all that ever were to the outpost - just to make sure everything is fair.

This is exactly what happens when one tries to be considerate with community. Offer a finger, lose a hand.

And if an exploit of such magnitude happens again, bans will be swift, and without consideration or chance of appeal. If Anet gives way even a bit after this, then every single time someone gets banned, threads like this will appear. It's the only thing that's possible.

So do make sure that by going down over this nonsense you take down as many as possible.

This is nothing new, it happens in every game. But only two things follow. The company either adopts zero-tolerance policy, and stops accepting appeals, or they stop dealing with exploits, and let them run rampant, writing off the game.

So far, Anet is still trying to balance things. So do make sure you show them how futile and pointless that is, so that they may skip to the above to outcomes immediately, then go back doing something more productive, such as developing GW2.

Every example so far has shown that reasoning with MMO communities is pointless.