Curse

-Sonata- · Jan 11, 2008, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

But it is also the Gov's fault for not posting a speed limit sign on the road you are driving on.

Better read up on your County, State, and Federal Driving manuals about unposted road limits in rural, urban, and city sectors. They have those manuals for a reason and why, at least where I live, you're tested on them in the written exam.

This is exactly the reasoning as to why I said Being oblivious to the obvious isn't good enough.

Bryant Again · Jan 11, 2008, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molock

The people who used this exploit had to know what it was... why would you believe that its ok to skip the whole quest and kill Mallyx over and over? It seems they got owned by their own greediness.

You could skip a whole lot by getting a Drok's run, so that shouldn't be the obvious red flag here. It's the outpost you're in that no one's ever heard of that should be blaring the huge warning sign.

Arkantos · Jan 11, 2008, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Quote:

For the non-hackers who abused this exploit, the situation is exactly the same as the Duncan running situation (assuming a lack of knowledge about hacking); treatment should be the same, methinks.

Everyone knew Duncan's door was in game, it was supposed to be in game. Nobody had to hack the client to access it. However this situation is different. This outpost was not supposed to be in the game and somebody had to hack the client to originally access it. For all we knew, Duncan's dungeon was supposed to be that way. DoA has been in the game for over a year, people knew you had to complete the first four areas to fight Mallyx. That's why this situation is different.

lishi · Jan 11, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

But it is also the Gov's fault for not posting a speed limit sign on the road you are driving on.

there is a huge difference between an owner leaving the door open while the people paying rent happen to walk into his apartment to talk to him while his wife is in the next room thinking it is a robber.

im pretty sure the concept of "do not hack the game, do not exploit bug or you might get banned" are pretty clear to even people who didnt read the eula

Bryant Again · Jan 11, 2008, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

"It could be illegal, but there is nothing saying that it is... might as well do it"
Most of the 117 people didn't know what was going on was against EULA. so they did it anyways.

In the speed limit example, there was no sign saying what the speed limit was, so that's a little excusable. But there *is* a sign for Guild Wars, and that's the EULA.

So saying "I didn't know what the speed limit was because I wasn't paying attention to the sign" is not a good defense.

Commander Ryker · Jan 11, 2008, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey

How many of you guys completely read the EULA before playing Guild Wars?

I don't have to read it to know that hacking the client is a big no no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

oh well... ANet has caused another contraversy... ending in me losing more respect for them. 1 less player you have received related to a contraversy...

LMAO.....how do you figure? The hackers caused the controversy and as far as respect goes........you already lost it. I really doubt that anet is worried about you losing respect for them. Not one less player, one less hacker.

Pro-Monk · Jan 11, 2008, 02:10 AM // 02:10

This has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with being cheaters. Much has been written how generations of Americans have grown up believing that it's ok to cheat. That's how they've made it through schools, colleges, careers,.....life.

These people will argue their point endlessly because they actually don't think they have done anything wrong. It's just the sad state of affairs.

Rexion · Jan 11, 2008, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

This outpost was not supposed to be in the game

making my statement correct.
ANet left the outpost there. They probably had an idea something could happen related to it, and it did. Thus, being their fault in the first place because they didn't get rid of it.

Venus Anu · Jan 11, 2008, 02:11 AM // 02:11

This a shame, all of this.
You all are saying mean things about the people banned, but I bet some of you opened that chest on the isle of the nameless, or were disappointed that you didn't know in time. Or you used that taxi-to-any-outpost glitch, or were also sorry you missed out on that one too.
I do know a few of these people who were banned, they are not hackers, they did not hack anything, perhaps the person who originally accessed the mission was a hacker but these people didn't use any 3rd party program.

You can easily cast your stones at them because it didn't happen to you.
They were farming a boss, how many of us farm a boss?

There are bots all over noob island, they are clearly bots, it's pathetic. there are hundreds if not thousands of them. 100 ppl farm a boss through a taxi and they are banned? But that's only 100 people and they already paid for their accounts. These bots that are not getting banned will probably make more bots so thats moremoney in arena nets pocket.

I understand the severity of a hack on Anet. So ban the hacker, My friends are not hackers would even think of attempting something like that.

It's a shame and it's causing a comotion here and you can't imagine the impact it has on us.

I really hope they reconsider this ban. I mean it may really effect how many in our alliance go on to GW2.

MsMassacre · Jan 11, 2008, 02:11 AM // 02:11

Okay, all very interesting. I kinda figured it would only be a matter of time before this sort of testing tool was found and exploited in one of the major MMOs.

...but am I the only one who reads and thinks, man, now I wanna see what those secret outposts look like!

TempusReborn · Jan 11, 2008, 02:12 AM // 02:12

I Wonder.....This signpost analogy the silly monk is trying to keep up. It says in the EULA that your not allowed to exploit bugs. But you seem to be saying because there was no signpost saying this thing was explicitly wrong its not your fault.

I Wonder when Anet would put up a signpost saying an specific exploit is wrong and not remove it....

Tempus Reborn

Bryant Again · Jan 11, 2008, 02:12 AM // 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

making my statement correct.
ANet left the outpost there. They probably had an idea something could happen related to it, and it did. Thus, being their fault in the first place because they didn't get rid of it.

So if a cop left his donuts unattended and I stole them, it's the cop's fault?

Nonetheless, you're missing the point still: They weren't banned for going to the outpost, they were banned for hacking into the outpost. That was the only way to get into it, via a hack.

As to this,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

you didn't read my post very well. I said "the ones of the 117 that didn't know what was going on".

See post 133.

1 up and 2 down · Jan 11, 2008, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

though my statement was a good comparison to what was going on...

"It could be illegal, but there is nothing saying that it is... might as well do it"
Most of the 117 people didn't know what was going on was against EULA. so they did it anyways.

Hmm, don't you think it's weird that a brand new outpost is introduced that lets you go straight to Mallyx? Anyone with common sense would know that it has to be fishy and shouldn't be exploited.

The Mountain · Jan 11, 2008, 02:13 AM // 02:13

arkantos, I know many people who have still not done DoA...how would those people know this was out of the ordinary?

Even if they knew it was unusual, the situation would then be similar to the recent ferrying issues; thus, punishment should be similar. I'm not saying that these individuals deserve a ban or simply a warning...just that anet should be consistent.

Keekles · Jan 11, 2008, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

making my statement correct.
ANet left the outpost there. They probably had an idea something could happen related to it, and it did. Thus, being their fault in the first place because they didn't get rid of it.

Not entirely. The outpost was not meant to exist for the everyday player. Since there is no way to access it without having been taken there by another person who already had access to it. The only way to originally access it is via a specialized account (I'm assuming here that developers and GMs will have had the ability to access this outpost without the use of anything else), or via a hack.

The fact that you were accessing some "unlisted" outpost should have been a "Hey! You might be exploiting the game!" sign.

Also, the lack of your common sense does not make it alright to break rules.

Cargan · Jan 11, 2008, 02:14 AM // 02:14

Good to see they actually did something about it and handed out a few bans. Hopefully this will be a lesson to others. Don't try using exploits. Sure, sometimes you will get away with it, but a ban is never far away.

With regards to Anet looking further into it before handing out the bans, I think they did the right things banning people promptly. Yes, even those who did it somewhat unwittingly. Those who are innocent will plead their case and they will look into it further. If they are found to be "innocent" then they will get their account back and will have learned a valuable lesson. Those who know they are guilty will not waste their time pleading their case. Lets be honest, about 80% of those people would have known they were using an exploit. I'm sure only taking more time to look further into the cases of those who send in a valid ticket would take less time than looking further into all of them and making a judgement call on every one.

I don't think people who did it only once should be banned. How is one to know something is wrong if they've never seen/done it before? To be honest, I would have done it too, once, to see what it is all about. I'm human, I'm curious. If someone says "don't look", you instinctively look. it's just what people do.

Shakti · Jan 11, 2008, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

This is exactly the reasoning as to why I said Being oblivious to the obvious isn't good enough.

Well said.

While I agree that those who were unwittingly taken there and left should not be banned, I do think those who stayed had culpability here. I know if I was suddenly in an outpost that didn't "exist" to do something that should not be possible, my inner voice would have something to say....probably preceded by hitting me over the head with a heavy large object

Dwimmerlaik · Jan 11, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

you didn't read my post very well. I said "the ones of the 117 that didn't know what was going on".

So what're you trying to insinuate is that whoever "unwittingly" went along on these would've had zero inkling that what they were doing was wrong? A real "oh hay that dungeon clear went fast this time" kind of moment? I'm sorry, but no. ANet would clearly be able to differentiate if someone was dragged along and had no clue, but going through with the kill of Mallyx and subsequent looting would make them as guilty as anyone else - else, they'd map out of there.

Commending ANet for this - keep up the good work.

Darkobra · Jan 11, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

But it is also the Gov's fault for not posting a speed limit sign on the road you are driving on.

Don't know where you live, but there are regular speed signs on every road here.

Also, to plant the boot square in your logic, you get taught the speed limits at your driving test. Comparable to the EULA to playing the game. Ironic, isn't it?

Arkantos · Jan 11, 2008, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rexion

making my statement correct.
ANet left the outpost there. They probably had an idea something could happen related to it, and it did. Thus, being their fault in the first place because they didn't get rid of it.

Your statement is still false. They had a secret outpost that nobody knew about in the game for testing. It was not their fault they got hacked.

If there was a key to the cell of a mass murderers cell in a locked cabinet in a locked, secured warden's office and somebody snuck around the guards, broke into the office, broke into the cabinet, stole the key that was safely locked away and freed the mass murderer, would it be the warden's fault for leaving the key in a locked cabinet in a locked, secured office with guards around the prison, or would it be the person's fault for sneaking past the guards, breaking into an office and stealing a key? Sure it's very exaggurated, but it's still relevant to what you're trying to say.

Quote:

So wait. Because it was left in to be used, it's fine? If I kill a guy I hate with his dad's gun, is it suddenly his dad's fault for leaving the gun out where I could get to it? Sure, that's exaggerating, but it's essentially what you're saying.

Read this. Although exaggerated, it's probably the best argument about your statement.

Quote:

arkantos, I know many people who have still not done DoA...how would those people know this was out of the ordinary?

Even if they knew it was unusual, the situation would then be similar to the recent ferrying issues; thus, punishment should be similar. I'm not saying that these individuals deserve a ban or simply a warning...just that anet should be consistent.

If the person has never been to DoA, I don't think they'd think that it's alright to skip the whole are and go straight to the final boss. You don't need to know the area to have a little common sense. Jumping straight to the final boss does not make sense, and if they were ferried to the outpost to fight the final boss they should have been curious. If they were curious and asked a friend/looked on wiki they would have found out. If they left in the outpost, they should not have been banned. If they did not know this was the final boss and killed him, well, they really should have looked up on the area before going to it. Although it may sound cruel, they were ignorant of the situation.