Curse

Raul the Rampant · Oct 17, 2008, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Crap... what was here is also on page 12.

Aera Lure · Oct 17, 2008, 03:11 AM // 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

I would argue that as this issue/exploit becomes discussed and it becomes public knowledge, more people will try to use it as an edge. The more people learn to use it as an edge, the less of an edge it becomes, simply because more people are using it. At some point, it can't be considered cheating if too great a population is using it to boost themselves, and at that point, ANet should have fixed it.

What is cheating is always cheating no matter how many do it. If everyone does something wrong it doesnt suddenly make what they do right. I'd caution against that particular line of logic and point out that if everyone breaks a law it does not change the law. Its simply makes the law unenforced or unenforceable. If this is in fact what you are saying, then I agree with you. Anet in the end directly or indirectly encourages the activity. If you are however saying that what defines cheating, or by extension breaking of societal law, has anything to do with what percentage of the population engages in the activity, I'd have to disagree.

Syncing has been known and discussed so long that it is already at the point that I would call it public knowledge. No topic here could spread it any further. Anet should have fixed it long ago if they truly wished a Random Arena. Its a small thing, and yet, not so small a thing at the same time. Inaction is an action unto itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoogi

It does not violate the EULA. Plain and simple. They do nothing which is unacceptable or broken. Anet can only do something against players if they violate the agreement.

Taking advantage of other players is cheating. Doesnt really matter if the EULA addresses it specifically in so far as definition. Anet can and does fall back on the EULA for actions taken against players, so it can be argued that Anet does not define it as cheating, as you dont either. However, it should still be defined as cheating due to context (Random Arena), abusing the system in ways unintended (trying to sync the entry timing), and taking advantage of players who do not use the same means (coordinating team builds and practiced team members on vent to gain advantage over presumably uncoordinated strangers on a random team). Certainly at least very easy to make that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoogi

And one definitely final point- Why don't people QQ about stuff that really breaks the game (i.e. expert's dexterity, retarded HA mechanics), we don't get many responses from Anet here, so at least save them for something useful.

Something to talk about. I mean really, why is anyone else even here? This issue has been this way for years. The same goes for many topics in Riverside and elsewhere. We still love the game, some of us still play, but many of us still like talking about it. I'm not sure many of us expect much action from Anet on a range of issues now. They are otherwise involved.

shoogi · Oct 17, 2008, 05:48 PM // 17:48

A known HA guild used to have people to make randomways and time it so they are teamed against the randomway in UW, and at that point they kill everyone except the player that made the randomway for them (most likely a guildie/friend/someone they paid for) and then kill him in a time that would guarantee a hall skip. Here you go, abusing the system. That is not how HA is meant to behave, so: omg! lets ban them!!!!11111. Exploiting a flawed system isn't cheating. The problem is the flawed system, not the people that exploit it.

Kashrlyyk · Oct 17, 2008, 09:01 PM // 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

They had that with 100% chance and it was fixed very quickly. Syncing has been in existence since the beginning because no fix is required.

I know that. The question is: If it were only successfull in 70% of the cases, would they have fixed it too? That is what Andrew Patrick was implying:"It is not 100% successful, ergo it is not a problem."

Raul the Rampant · Oct 18, 2008, 12:23 AM // 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

I know that. The question is: If it were only successfull in 70% of the cases, would they have fixed it too? That is what Andrew Patrick was implying:"It is not 100% successful, ergo it is not a problem."

Saying "It is not 100% successful, ergo it is not a problem" is only looking at and interpreting part of the quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Patrick

Even when a team tries to synch, it doesn't always work. It does sometimes though, so I will see if the designers feel it is a serious issue, and if there is a way to fix it.

I bolded the part that I think is the key to the whole issue. Assuming he actually followed through on this statement (I don't know why he would bother to post it if he wasn't going to do so) the lack of any response implies that the mechanic that allows people to sync is not far enough outside of the intended operation to warrant serious consideration as an exploit or cheat. Therefore it is safe to assume that the random team generator is working as it is intended. In the case of the zergrush the devs concluded that there was an unintended result, which is why action was taken.

fenix · Oct 18, 2008, 05:08 AM // 05:08

There is really no easy solution to this without overhauling the way RA works, or the way the counter works.

In other words, ANet won't fix it.

Kashrlyyk · Oct 18, 2008, 05:33 AM // 05:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

There is really no easy solution to this without overhauling the way RA works, or the way the counter works.

In other words, ANet won't fix it.

Randomizing the entries of a list is hard?

fenix · Oct 18, 2008, 05:38 AM // 05:38

Try randomizing 4 entries. That's why syncing works.

Kashrlyyk · Oct 18, 2008, 08:33 AM // 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Try randomizing 4 entries. That's why syncing works.

Any Random Arena battle consists of 8 players. They could even use a simple if clause, to shake it up.

pumpkin pie · Oct 18, 2008, 09:08 AM // 09:08

Dear Arena Net's Representative, Arena Net or whom it may concern:

Just wanted to ask Arena Net this: Why aren't you doing something about sync entry as its annoyance level is no longer tolarable, you do recognise the problem, as you yourself have a warning on the official wiki page that it is consider griefing.

So how about it, Arena Net, please fix it. Thank you very much.

Narcissia · Oct 18, 2008, 09:19 AM // 09:19

i personally dont think its too big of a deal. a lot of ppl that sync still arent very good... get a good build and go pwn em.
plus, i cant imagine it being very easy to randomize teams when there arent many people in the district, which is usually where people try to sync.

fenix · Oct 18, 2008, 09:36 AM // 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Dear Arena Net's Representative, Arena Net or whom it may concern:

Just wanted to ask Arena Net this: Why aren't you doing something about sync entry as its annoyance level is no longer tolarable, you do recognise the problem, as you yourself have a warning on the official wiki page that it is consider griefing.

So how about it, Arena Net, please fix it. Thank you very much.

uh...lol? The annoyance level is the same now as it was 3 years ago. Minimal. It's not recognised by ANet as a problem, but by whoever edited the page. I could edit a skill to say "this skill is considered griefing", but that doesn't mean that it's ANet's view. Also, griefing != exploiting.

Can this be closed already? After all the discussion and complaints over the last 3.5 years, it's clear ANet do not intend on fixing it. This won't change now when they have almost no staff working on GW.

pumpkin pie · Oct 18, 2008, 10:53 AM // 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

uh...lol? The annoyance level is the same now as it was 3 years ago. Minimal. It's not recognised by ANet as a problem, but by whoever edited the page. I could edit a skill to say "this skill is considered griefing", but that doesn't mean that it's ANet's view. Also, griefing != exploiting.

Can this be closed already? After all the discussion and complaints over the last 3.5 years, it's clear ANet do not intend on fixing it. This won't change now when they have almost no staff working on GW.

It is clear what you want, and you are not Arena Net.

Frankly speaking, no one know what arena net's standing on this issue.

Yes, correct, griefing is exploit, and sync entry is griefing hence it is an exploit, at least now its not just me and people who think sync entry is an exploit, it is now also an exploit according to Guild Wars Official Wiki.

And, yes, everyone can edit Guild Wars Official Wiki. So, go ahead and edit it, why don't you?

Krill · Oct 18, 2008, 11:39 AM // 11:39

The Asian districts for RA need to be shut down or rolled into the American and Euro player pools. I kinda feel bad for any Korean, Chinese and now Japanese players that actually use their district because they will play 75%+ sync teams. It's also really lame when TA groups leave from RA to start a run with 10 free wins.

AnbuAdam · Oct 18, 2008, 12:40 PM // 12:40

I RA frequently and I rarely see people count down in all chat. Even if its in Guild chat, it doesnt really matter. Its only RA, you can just go out and get another game. I never ever ONCE seen 4 guildies on one RA team. Its just very unlikely and if they really wanted to be together, they'd go to a more barren district like the asian ones. If the more "serious syncers" are playing in the asian districts, this shouldnt be a problem for you.

Raul the Rampant · Oct 18, 2008, 08:53 PM // 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Just wanted to ask Arena Net this: Why aren't you doing something about sync entry as its annoyance level is no longer tolarable, you do recognise the problem, as you yourself have a warning on the official wiki page that it is consider griefing.

But then...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Frankly speaking, no one know what arena net's standing on this issue.

Umm, it's not possible to not have a stance on an issue and recognize it as a problem at the same time. The quoted part of the second post is completely accurate, but the first is just out there. Fenix already touched on the problems of using notes the wiki as absolute evidence, and the annoyance levels are subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arienrhode

The Asian districts for RA need to be shut down or rolled into the American and Euro player pools.

This or force everyone into International districts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnbuAdam

If the more "serious syncers" are playing in the asian districts, this shouldnt be a problem for you.

Simplest solution of all: move to populated districts and the problem is solved.

w00t! · Oct 18, 2008, 11:55 PM // 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

(snip)
(Anet has...)
a warning on the official wiki page that it is consider griefing.
(snip)

Well, that makes it clear. It's a grief, not an exploit. I can be handled by the EULA and /report. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Also, griefing != exploiting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Yes, correct, griefing is exploit, and sync entry is griefing hence it is an exploit, at least now its not just me and people who think sync entry is an exploit, it is now also an exploit according to Guild Wars Official Wiki.

er, no. You may want to read up on !=.

Martin Alvito · Oct 19, 2008, 05:18 AM // 05:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by icedwhitemocha

Why is this 12 pages???

Well, the following issues remain unsettled:

1) What is an "exploit" in GW? I've heard lots of definitions tossed around, but nothing to explain how to discern between how one behavior is an "exploit" and another that is "intelligent application of existing rules". The Potter Stewart definition ("I cannot define it but I know it when I see it") is insufficient.

2) Is syncing an "exploit"?

3) Should we care even if it is an "exploit"?

4) Assuming for the moment that syncing IS an "exploit", is there an easily implementable fix?

5) Would the community prefer a ban on syncing, given that it has been a commonly known tactic for years?

I haven't seen any of these issues get put to bed, and any of them could be a legitimate topic for a thread. Since all five issues are fairly contentious, the result is an epic-length thread with little resolution on any of the underlying questions.

Productivity · Oct 19, 2008, 05:59 AM // 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

Dear Arena Net's Representative, Arena Net or whom it may concern:

Just wanted to ask Arena Net this: Why aren't you doing something about sync entry as its annoyance level is no longer tolarable, you do recognise the problem, as you yourself have a warning on the official wiki page that it is consider griefing.

So how about it, Arena Net, please fix it. Thank you very much.

Have you not worked out yet but only a minority care. The annoyance level is highly tolerable, if you don't suck at Guild Wars. I've been accused of syncing in a completely random team simply because we played well and steamrolled through a few teams. Hint. if you're not winning in random arenas, don't try to find excuses such as syncing for your loss, get better at the game.

Avarre · Oct 19, 2008, 06:26 AM // 06:26

There's nothing left being discussed here.