Curse

Martin Alvito · Oct 22, 2009, 09:30 PM // 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Anet has to solve the problem somehow.

Lies. The devs have clearly revealed that doing nothing is an option.

But I understand your sentiment!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The only reason this thread still exists is because people realize that Anet doesn't really solve problems. Instead they take a long time to temporarily solve an issue, until another issue comes up with the exact same problem. Instead of attacking the core problem, they attack the issues around it to no effect because the problem comes back up in another form. Ok I may be a bit confusing and on a tangent now though.

Nope, you're saying it perfectly clearly. The problem is that ANet doesn't understand the player base. This is surprising, since the players act pretty rationally when it comes to spending their time. Give them a stupid easy way to make in-game cash, and they flock to it like flies to honey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

True, but I also think the exploit was bad due to how widespread it was. Duping was VERY limited in comparison.

You only think this. Look, duping was possible for seven months. Prices didn't update fully in response to the changing economic realities because people believed (with cause) that duping was impossible. We don't know when it started, but we can reasonably infer that it went on for weeks if not months, and that it was restricted to a small coterie of people until some idiot (Monkey-something-or-another) inadvertently broke it to the public by trying to trade 1750 armbraces to Max Gladius for a Greased Lightning.

Given weeks or months, a small group of people can do a lot of damage with a dupe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

We can not compare UWSC with RR or duping.

We must compare to ascertain what differs. I agree with your sentiment on exploits but I am still unclear as to where the line is. We might say that "any balance issue already in the EULA as prohibited is a bannable offense". That would pick up RR, Ebony Citadel and duping as you seem to prefer.

This doesn't address the injustice of letting RR go on for months and THEN ban people, but I'm willing to concede that's a separate issue from a theory of bans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Oops, but match manipulation wasn't a violation until the latest EULA update. With the previous EULA and CoC, you would not be able define RR as bannable without being entirely circular and wrong.

Sure, but the announcement about match manipulation went into effect months ago, well before RR became popular and around the time ZQuests were instituted as I recall. Now who's being intellectually dishonest? Your point is intentionally misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard

Oh come on now! Because other people get wealthier you get relatively poorer and is thus unjust? The zkeys are there waiting to be picked, by picking them you are not victimizing anyone else. That's like saying because Norway is pumping black gold out of the ocean the rest of the world will suffer because of our increased buying power.

No, I'm saying that the Saudis suffer when the Norwegians discover oil. The Saudis have a vested interest in torpedoing Norwegian oil explorers! How hard is this? This isn't the first time we've had this argument!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sankt Hallvard

Even in real life you can extract resources from the nature, the economy is not a fixed sum where distribution is the only factor. RR is even available to anyone, if you are worried about your fortune devaluing go ahead and RR.

For God's sake man! This is a stupid easy model:

- everyone starts with some amount X amount of cash in zkeys/title
- you can make it at a rate of Y per hour RRing
- your existing stack of zkeys/title decreases in value at a rate of Z per hour as RR devalues zkeys on the open market. For simplicity assume Z is a linear function of X; ie: any amount of X decays at a constant rate.

If we assume that we're all sixteen and time has no opportunity cost, everyone for whom Y < Z loses under RR. As X gets larger, the odds that Y < Z increase irrespective of the magnitude of the supply and demand component of Z. If we add in the opportunity cost of time, such that you really make Y' < Y RRing, things only get worse.

There. Five minutes cooks up an existence proof that mathematically demonstrates your assertion is incorrect. Conditions exist under which RR is bad for you. Therefore, an externality exists. All the players for whom Z > Y' screw all the players for whom Y' < Z. The one group's economic activity imposes costs on the other group. QED.

Skyy High · Oct 22, 2009, 09:37 PM // 21:37

@Nereida (yeah, yeah, you're not responding, whatever):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile

KJ -- it's our responsibility to do what we can to monitor the game and to correct wrongdoing within the game. But no team -- no team is any game -- has the sort of omniscience you seem to think we have. For all the records there are, someone will find a way to work around them to hurt players or to take advantage of the gameplay mechanics to the detriment of the community as a whole. I can give you a sort of hypothetical situation, just as a for-instance: We can track trades. Scammers know that. So say they tell innocent players some RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO-and-bull story about how they need to "see" the item and they can only see it properly if the item is dropped on the ground. Then, hey presto! They steal it off the ground! So say we then develop a means to view every item that is dropped on the ground. What happens? Right, they then find yet another way to take advantage of the trusting and the unsuspecting.

Remember how, when the game came out, there wasn't a confirmation of trade? That people could swap a useless item for the good one that their trading partner thought he was getting? Remember when it was difficult to distinguish between gold and platinum in the trade window? Remember when you could leech without a Dishonor mark? Remember when... Well, I think you see my point. Development is an ever-evolving process, but the bad guys are always moving forward, as we are, and it would be wrong to stop action until every single one of them could be caught.

To put it very directly: There is no moral or legal imperative to adopt a stance that says "Unless we can catch every single person who abused the system, we cannot (or will not) action anyone we catch." We will act, when we can, and we will not accept harassment, criticism, or threats of "legal action" on the basis of "You got caught and that other guy did not." If you are guilty, and you get caught, everything else is just so much hot air. -- Gaile 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

link

In short: too frickin bad. Complaining that they didn't ban everyone is like a guy who gets pulled over going 100mph down the highway complaining that he gets passed all the time when he's driving the speed limit.

bursta91 · Oct 23, 2009, 12:09 AM // 00:09

Fixed!
123456789012

Oster · Oct 23, 2009, 12:30 AM // 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bursta91

Fixed!
123456789012

QFT
/12char

komma · Oct 23, 2009, 12:45 AM // 00:45

Happy RRRIP Day

Zahr Dalsk · Oct 23, 2009, 01:52 AM // 01:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntMaster Avatar

Exactly. They already have your money. Now they have to figure out how to get more of your money. So they addict you, ban you and like a good little tool, people go out and buy new copies of the games. Thats awesome, huh?

If you do something that feels to you like cheating but doesn't seem to be technically not allowed, don't be surprised if you get banned anyways. ArenaNet doesn't have to let you go just because you found some loophole or omission - it's their game, and if you decide to be a little weasel about your actions, they can ban you anyways.

People who follow the spirit of the rules, rather than just the letter, have nothing to be concerned with.

Arkantos · Oct 23, 2009, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Hero Battles was removed, no one has stated they've received a ban for RR. Thread is over.