No answer...must be ok!

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

So, a few days ago I sent a PM, to cubie, kobold and Q about something I thought was an exploit.

From their lack of response...it has been been 4 days...either they received so many responses/PMs about the "E" word that they could not respond to mine...
Or, It wasn't an E..

They were going to get back to us...right?

Should I send more questions to them about assumed E's?

Should I just wait a few more days?

I don't want any real details...but did anyone get a response form a PM?

Maybe they just don't like me..
/cry

[Gabrion]

Well I sent them a list of over 100, ranging from the box jump shortcut in Kobold's new Ringleader to Sneak lighting the Pyres in FBtG to giving Harry a chill pill. Maybe they came across that and are actually trying to answer? :)

[ChildrenofBodom]

Well I sent them a list of over 100, ranging from the box jump shortcut in Kobold's new Ringleader to Sneak lighting the Pyres in FBtG to giving Harry a chill pill. Maybe they came across that and are actually trying to answer? :)

The box jump is obviously not an exploit. lol

That box is like 10x bigger then any other boxes.

[Razvan]

Well I sent them a list of over 100, ranging from the box jump shortcut in Kobold's new Ringleader to Sneak lighting the Pyres in FBtG to giving Harry a chill pill. Maybe they came across that and are actually trying to answer? :)

Are you kidding about those two? Or are you people reporting everything now to find out if it is an exploit?

[moorewr]

In the same boat. Anyone gotten any kind of answer?

[Gabrion]

Are you kidding about those two? Or are you people reporting everything now to find out if it is an exploit?

Pretty much everything. The only definition they gave us includes these actions (along with basically any other tactics in the game), so I want to be sure so that I don't get in trouble. Plus I figure the more we send them the more they will be forced to face the fact that the current vague definition is unworkable at best and game damaging at worst.

[soupertc]

I heard if Turbine doesn't fix this mess that the senate is goin to form a commision and the president is about to declare all exploiters as part of the new Axis of Evil.....he claims we got WMDs.....maybe he meant UMD. Film at 10.

[Aspenor]

In the same boat. Anyone gotten any kind of answer?

Yes I have gotten answers.

However, I refrained from asking any questions about particular bugs/possible exploits. I asked about parameters for defining an exploit.

[Razvan]

Or they get cluttered with silly reports that prevent them from getting to the REAL exploits...

I guess when they gave the "vague" definition they were actually counting on some player "common sense"...**** Turbine, when will you ever learn?

[Oreg]

I heard if Turbine doesn't fix this mess that the senate is goin to form a commision and the president is about to declare all exploiters as part of the new Axis of Evil.....he claims we got WMDs.....maybe he meant UMD. Film at 10.

LOL. Thanks man (or Woman) that was good - UMD *chuckles*

[Impaqt]

I think Turbine opened a Can they couldnt handle and the Forums are under seige right now. They are Busy with mod 7 and no doubtedly workign overtime on figureing out why they cant get Mobs to aggro correctly.

The Timing was aweful.

This was somethign todo a week or 2 After a Major release.... Not a week or 2 before.

[Dexxaan]

I heard if Turbine doesn't fix this mess that the senate is goin to form a commision and the president is about to declare all exploiters as part of the new Axis of Evil.....he claims we got WMDs.....maybe he meant UMD. Film at 10.

ROFLMAO.....:D

[Gabrion]

I guess when they gave the "vague" definition they were actually counting on some player "common sense"...**** Turbine, when will you ever learn?

Sigh...this is the same tired argument ppl on your side have been using for the past week. No, it is not common sense what is or is not a game exploit. It just isn't. And it's not because those of use who disagree are morons either - we have well thought out positions on the subject that are very different from your "common sense."

[Warmane]

Pretty much everything. The only definition they gave us includes these actions (along with basically any other tactics in the game), so I want to be sure so that I don't get in trouble. Plus I figure the more we send them the more they will be forced to face the fact that the current vague definition is unworkable at best and game damaging at worst.

ZOMG.... Really Gabrion? Please tell me your being sarcastic *begs* :) I'm just gonna play the game and if I get into trouble (ie banned) cause I FOUND a way to conquer the instance I'm in, then so be it.... I'm here to play and have fun, not to beat my head against the wall in frustration (I am a casual player w/out 1337 skillz!)

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

I have been soloing EVERYTHING in order to give this whole issue some time to work it out/ get some response from the

DEV'/moderators so that I can ensure I am not cheating/being seen as a cheater/ being reported for something stupid...

I mean, if you have ever seen me run loot in the vale or in the orchard or in the desert...

(or even solo WW, in my silly way of taking seeming gimped builds with decent gear through there (or heck! totally gimped untwinked and deficient characters...)...and I am pretty much soloing it though I am in a party and there are others contributing but when it really comes down to it I could have done it without them and I was just helping them get through it and ensuring they would succeed because I soloed it at level 2 and and and [breath] {lol} (not braggin..just honest))

...it has got to irk people off when they realize they are just there to loot my chest and not really required to do anything...except keep up/gather for haste/don't get too lost...and getting free loot.

irked (lol)off people get quiet.
The get to thinking..
Then they think about reporting..
Or, they break group and never follow me for free loot again.

[Yaga_Nub]

Sigh...this is the same tired argument ppl on your side have been using for the past week. No, it is not common sense what is or is not a game exploit. It just isn't. And it's not because those of use who disagree are morons either - we have well thought out positions on the subject that are very different from your "common sense."

And those positions are?........

[Gabrion]

ZOMG.... Really Gabrion? Please tell me your being sarcastic *begs* :) I'm just gonna play the game and if I get into trouble (ie banned) cause I FOUND a way to conquer the instance I'm in, then so be it.... I'm here to play and have fun, not to beat my head against the wall in frustration (I am a casual player w/out 1337 skillz!)

Well the part about being worried that I will get in trouble was sarcastic at least. :)

[Asirin]

I think Turbine opened a Can they couldnt handle and the Forums are under seige right now. They are Busy with mod 7 and no doubtedly workign overtime on figureing out why they cant get Mobs to aggro correctly.

The Timing was aweful.

This was somethign todo a week or 2 After a Major release.... Not a week or 2 before.
Im thinkin prolly more than a little bit of the problem is when they changed the aggro to detect casters and non-damaging AOE/summon spells origins right before Mod 5 was released.But what do I know my VCR is still flashing 12:00.

[Gabrion]

And those positions are?........

I agreed not to exploit the game (or whatever the ToS or EULA says) because I don't believe it's possible. If Turbine is going to hold people accountable for "exploiting" their game, it is up to them to define the term. So far they haven't done this.

[Altarboy]

Or they get cluttered with silly reports that prevent them from getting to the REAL exploits...

I guess when they gave the "vague" definition they were actually counting on some player "common sense"...**** Turbine, when will you ever learn?
Vague does not work when laying down a set of rules...
it leaves areas of interpretation and everyone has their own views on just about every single tactic in the game...
"common sense" says do the quest the easiest most economical way.
Can you honestly not see the need for clarity?
I would list the VERY questionable tactics but details are taboo....as ludacris as that is

[Aspenor]

Look, just give it a few weeks.

Clarification is on the way. Turbine knows the need for it.

[Altarboy]

Look, just give it a few weeks.

Clarification is on the way. Turbine knows the need for it.
Promise?...will it be here before Monks?

[Aspenor]

Promise?Yes...will it be here before Monks?I won't promise that :)
:)

[TommyBoy]

I heard if Turbine doesn't fix this mess that the senate is goin to form a commision and the president is about to declare all exploiters as part of the new Axis of Evil.....he claims we got WMDs.....maybe he meant UMD. Film at 10.

how'd he find out about my wmd's?

[soupertc]

how'd he find out about my wmd's?

Goverment intel is top notch man.

[Aspenor]

Goverment intel is top notch man.

Unless you're talking about a foreign country :p

[Muirtach]

I agreed not to exploit the game (or whatever the ToS or EULA says) because I don't believe it's possible. If Turbine is going to hold people accountable for "exploiting" their game, it is up to them to define the term. So far they haven't done this.

Thanks, here I was thinking that being kicked out by my room mates via text message was absurd


"Any purposeful activity which takes advantage of a game bug or defect which returns benefit or quest progress without cost or risk to the player or team."

Maybe I am stupid, but that looks like a definition to me

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

I will take a while to get them to come out and give us proper responses...
Right now they are prolly getting things they never thought of
They are prolly disgusted.

They are prolly getting suggestions from things like using bulls strength to detect secret door clickies to fire wall abuse...

they prolly thought my first little question was so insignificant that it did not require a response.

But no word is bad for me.

No word means this xenophobe will continue not to group.

This means this xenophbic untrusting hating repercussions not wanting to get banned individual will continue to avoid others, solo things and discover new ways to play the game that would prolly best be sescribed as "not as intended"...

Don't make me not group.

I might be valuable to a group.

I might have the resources and knowledge that the new to the game might need to learn or have, I might be able to teach old dogs new tricks to make those hated quests doable.

I might be better, if I start playing well with others again.

[Turial]

Thanks, here I was thinking that being kicked out by my room mates via text message was absurd



Maybe I am stupid, but that looks like a definition to me

It is a definition but not a good one. It is too broad of a definition with many grey areas in the way of interpretation. Under this definition what is a valid tactic in one quest may be an exploit in another. Many players take issue with such things because powergamers and casual gamers alike are likely to get caught doing something like that. In a time of supposed hightened sensitivity to the use of exploits and the stated increase in punishments for such actions you can forgive some of us for wanting a better definition.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

Maybe I am stupid, but that looks like a definition to me

Not really... that very sentance you quoted was debated for pages. I for example think that bans the "hero method" in the vons, others disagree. I think it bans firewall at the door, others disagree.

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

Originally Posted by Quarion
"Any purposeful activity which takes advantage of a game bug or defect which returns benefit or quest progress without cost or risk to the player or team."


Ok... But i am paranoid...just say others might be paranoid too...could happen.

To me, that means, If I have found a way not to die in the quest I am doing the "E" again.

That means, to me, If I do not get hit by MOBs I snipe I am an "E"er
(dodge left fire dodge right fire)

If I do not face the MOBs in all my glory, sand still and take it like a 600HP 60AC tank I am a "E".

I use "TACTICS".

I rarely stand still, I run MOBS around in circles, I use FW agro to keep them in the FW...I carry what I need..I get by without what I cannot get...my sorc has no raid gear and prevails..(E)

If I run a loot run 15 times and do not die...I start to think...I am an "E"er.
A rich, bags full, experienced, proficient, devious, monster, unscrupulous, tactical, nuker of an EXPLOITER..

There...i said it.

[Gabrion]

Maybe I am stupid, but that looks like a definition to me

That is no more a definition than "something with walls" is a definition of a house. You can find a lot of things out there with walls that aren't houses, and you can find thousands of examples in game that meet that definition, but even the "common sense" crowd wont call exploits.

Edit: And the other problem is that definitions are meaningless if they contain other terms that are undefined. In this case "defect" and "bug" are words that are no more clear than "exploit."

[ENGRAV0]

Are you kidding about those two? Or are you people reporting everything now to find out if it is an exploit?

And, in NO offensive nature, NO attack whatsoever, or anything personal, but if they, being the powers to answer these questions without question, don't give us, ALL OF US, a direct answer, what have we to go on? Only how we feel, then based on what each other feel, and that leads to explosions in the forums, people feeling less inclined to party with anyone they don't know well, and where will that put the new guys? Where will that put anyone trying to get back into the game? Anyone who I don't know (Used an example, when I said "I").

The ONLY ones that can say what IS or is NOT an exploit is them. They have CLEARLY told us what to do, send them a PM, which has now been done, by the looks of things, hundreds of players. hopefully they will actualy see them, and rethink their policy of having the Cube and KK remove any inclination that there is a serious disease festering here, and they are the shot to fix it. It only takes a few lines of text for them to squash almost the ENTIRE debate, and then we can all go back to asking about Lag and Scrolls. LoL. Ok, cheapo shot at the scrolls, but the lag is an issue that they need to admit is NOT 90% our fault.

[ENGRAV0]

One more thing, by the definition, exactly as quoted from "Q" if you look at it, there is no debate then. He said it, if there is NO risk or Danger. Take the Fiend, and what is currently going on in parts 4 and 5, you still have mobs in 4, and blades in 5, so there IS danger AND risk.

Still think his "Definition" is simple enough?

Ok, now I believe we see where the interpretation comes in, and why a VAGUE definition will NOT suffice. Only part of the danger would be removed, only part of the risk is removed, so his definition in itself is flawed, and something simple from them, but yet DIRECT would alleviate the issues of late.

Also, sent in several PMs to the KK and no response, so, guess we all wait, for what they will blame on being busy with the Monk and Mod release polishing, rather than respond. Ok, no, I don't want them to drop everything to come hold my hand, but honestly, I am surprised they are still in buiseness. I have always asked, due to bugs and flaws, DOES THE QA DEPARTMENT HAVE A QA performed on themselves? Are they answering to anyone higher, or is it some meeting where the true top guys are told, oh, all is good, and everyone goes back to playing Golf?

[ArkoHighStar]

One more thing, by the definition, exactly as quoted from "Q" if you look at it, there is no debate then. He said it, if there is NO risk or Danger. Take the Fiend, and what is currently going on in parts 4 and 5, you still have mobs in 4, and blades in 5, so there IS danger AND risk.

Still think his "Definition" is simple enough?

Ok, now I believe we see where the interpretation comes in, and why a VAGUE definition will NOT suffice. Only part of the danger would be removed, only part of the risk is removed, so his definition in itself is flawed, and something simple from them, but yet DIRECT would alleviate the issues of late.

Also, sent in several PMs to the KK and no response, so, guess we all wait, for what they will blame on being busy with the Monk and Mod release polishing, rather than respond. Ok, no, I don't want them to drop everything to come hold my hand, but honestly, I am surprised they are still in buiseness. I have always asked, due to bugs and flaws, DOES THE QA DEPARTMENT HAVE A QA performed on themselves? Are they answering to anyone higher, or is it some meeting where the true top guys are told, oh, all is good, and everyone goes back to playing Golf?


To add to your point, if simply reomving part of the danger is considered an exploit, you could argue athat any group that does not kill every monster in the dungeon could be considered exploiting because we are bypassing mobs and thus negating danger to the party by doing so. Yet Turbine in the same vein rewards us if no monsters are killed and we complete, simply try running through the low road without killing anything and you get a bonus, yet if I take Turbine's definition I used a strategy that could be considered an exploit because I used no resources and by avoiding combat avoided danger. Same with the boxes in Kobold's new ringleader, or the fact that the skeleton archers in pretty much every quest are basically turrets that do not move so running past them and leaving them in place, you avoid expending resources and once out of range they present no danger to you.

If Turbine is using it to determine how it bans people from the game,the definition needs tobe much more narrow, . At one time Turbine used to close quests where there were large exploits, Stormcleave, Tempest, Redwillow, and Threnal all had "Ride closed for repairs" signs at one point. If Turbine truly wants to fix the problem then close the Shroud until it is fixed, because simply leaving it open is basically saying, "yeah we know its wrong but until we fix it have fun"

[oronisi]

So, a few days ago I sent a PM, to cubie, kobold and Q about something I thought was an exploit.

From their lack of response...it has been been 4 days...either they received so many responses/PMs about the "E" word that they could not respond to mine...
Or, It wasn't an E..

They were going to get back to us...right?

Should I send more questions to them about assumed E's?

Should I just wait a few more days?

I don't want any real details...but did anyone get a response form a PM?

Maybe they just don't like me..
/cry


I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Turbine was not planning on the backlash they got from their latest exploits initiative. Perhaps they did not think the community would point the finger at their coding bugs, perhaps they didn't think we would see huge flaws in their delivery or lack of ability to define an exploit other than "PM that guy and he'll tell you if it is or isnt." Either way, it's not you, Turbine just needs a few days (or weeks) to rethink their anti-exploit initiative, come up with a better plan, and reintroduce it to the community.

At least, that's what I'm hoping for. Otherwise their quietness would be VERY scary.

[RTN]

This is why asking players to report on other players is a bad idea. We should bug report exploits. It's their job to find and punish exploiters, but more importantly, it's their job to fix the exploits. They also need to spell out, in general terms, which specific tactics they consider an exploit. Until they start laying this information out, this should all be a moot issue.

[Anastasios]

At least, that's what I'm hoping for. Otherwise their quietness would be VERY scary.

Dude oronisi, I can't leave my house it's that scary, everytime I move somewhere I'm always looking around the corner, coz I know he's watching me, that little bugger is just waiting to catch me and scream 'YARK YARK BANNED SUCKA', I really need this to end, I can't live like this for much longer...

[Pellegro]

You guys (and gals?) are funny.

The definition provided of an exploit is satisfactory.

You prefer to debate semantics than accept the spirit of the rule, which again, is satisfactorily expressed by Q's definition.

Someone suggested the "hero method" may be an exploit under the definition. Assuming this is where 1 person pulls all aggro, the others stand back and heal him ... No. That's not a "game bug or defect". The mobs are doing *precisely* what they've been programmed to do - they aggro on whoever is dishing out damage. That is plainly a tactic, supported by in game devices (such as Initimidate).

Someone else suggested firewalling a door fits the definition. Again a weak argument. The mobs are, again, doing *exactly* what they're programmed to do - go after the the person dishing out the damage. You have merely used in game tactics to prevent them from getting to said damage dealer. Some mobs are more intelligent and will range you. This is all by design.

Someone suggested that by not killing all mobs in a dungeon (yet finishing) that may meet the definition. Another outlandish proposition. The mechanism for finishing the quest is *not* to kill all the mobs. It is functioning as it is designed to do. In certain quests, by contrast, you *must* kill someone. If you find a way to complete that without killing said someone, then you've got a real candidate.

Someone suggested that b/c in Parts 4 and 5 of the Shroud, you have whirring blades, that there is still some danger and hence not an exploit. Please .... When your mother asks if you want toast do you criticize her for not specifying what type of bread? Or how toasty you want your toast???

Arguing semantics is easy, because words are always defined by other words, hence you can always reduce the definition to some equivalent, and then argue that it does or does not definitively define (for you) what is an exploit. That's a bogus approach.

Taking a raid boss and causing him to stop moving, stop fighting, and stand still while you beat him to death is plainly a game bug or defect. If you can't see that, then you are simply refusing to be reasonable and time is better spent dealing with more reasonable people and more reasonable requests.

Whether or not the playerbase should be punished for exploiting in game bugs is a different question (in my view). I personally do not think they should be. Its a personal decision, and I do not feel that Turbine should punish us for taking advantage of their mistakes. What they should do is fix the underlying issue. If that means some folks will get unfair advantages in the interim - oh well. If those players choose to play that way, then so be it. Our collective energies can be spent on more important things - like fixing the major exploits/bugs (i.e. Raid bosses who can be immunized) and creating new content.

Just my 2 cents.

[Cuchilo]

Pellegro -

You are making assumptions on how the mobs are supposed to interact with PCs. You don't know that for sure. This is part of what is being asked of Turbine. Is Velah coded correctly to ignore the 11 people hiding back there and only attack the buffed fighter in front of her nose? A lot of players come from a PnP background and find this encounter preposterous. If it is therefore a coding error, by doing it you are exploiting tat code for an easier win. If it is working as intended, Turbine should say so.

Now there are other things that can also be seen as potential exploits in the eyes of Turbine based on their previous actions. Most groups in VoN5 used to just have a tank or three jump up onto the ladder, and clear up top. This ignored the pretty fire jet to boost you up to the top by coordinating 4 people to hit levers. Turbine shortened the ladder. This can therefore be interpreted as them ficing an exploit. If you follow that logic, it then becomes possible that Turbine consider using the big box in Bonebite to avoid half the mobs in the dungeon an exploit. Are they going to remove that box at some point? Was it an oversight? Is it functioning as part of the design for that quest?

PS: If any of that was too specific, or gave away too many details, please don't give me any infraction points. Rather just ban my forum account, and I'll talk to other adults ingame. I grow weary of the childish slaps on the wrist, gags to meaningful discussion etc. Not trying to anger/inflame here, but if this post violates the rules for discussion on the forums, then there is very little being discussed at all.
Take CO6 part 2. People used to zerg to the end for easy easy xp, fighting nothing on the way. Was that an exploit? Turbine added doors and made the end fight compulsory, effectively stopping that behaviour. Does this mean that I should not zerg past all the mobs in say Delera's part 2? Should I engage and clear each room? Where does 'exploit' start and end? The spirit of the definition is NOT clear in my opinion.

Are there bugs and flaws that are blatant exploits? Of course, I don't dispute that. The fact that there is a way to repeat part 2 of a quest chain over and over again without completing the other parts or restarting and doing part 1 again is almost certainly an exploit. It has been around, and been used since I started playing however, and nothing has ever been done to stop it. Which creates doubt in the minds of some, is it intended? I personally don't think so, but my opinion is not the one that counts for infractions and bans.

[Talcyndl]

Or they get cluttered with silly reports that prevent them from getting to the REAL exploits...


You think?

/sarcasm

If Turbine learned anything it is to never underestimate the ability of some in the community to be intentionally obtuse.

[Kistilan]

I don't want any real details...but did anyone get a response form a PM?

Maybe they just don't like me..
/cry

Nope, I haven't received a response about my Hero Method question either, but how about you PM me yours and I'll PM you mine. Then we can respond to each other on whether each thing is an exploit and be content with those answers.

'sides, I actually do like you! :)

[Gabrion]

You guys (and gals?) are funny.

The definition provided of an exploit is satisfactory.

You prefer to debate semantics than accept the spirit of the rule, which again, is satisfactorily expressed by Q's definition.

No the definition is not satisfactory and I have no idea what the spirit of the rule is.


Someone suggested the "hero method" may be an exploit under the definition. Assuming this is where 1 person pulls all aggro, the others stand back and heal him ... No. That's not a "game bug or defect". The mobs are doing *precisely* what they've been programmed to do - they aggro on whoever is dishing out damage. That is plainly a tactic, supported by in game devices (such as Initimidate).

Hero has another component to it...only one character is ever in danger. Not because they are the one grabbing aggro, but because the rest of the party positions themselves such that they can't be hurt. Then they send in the "hero" to fight over and over again when he dies. 11 out of 12 people in a raid are in no danger, one person is. Furthermore, the raid itself is pretty much a guaranteed completion with this method. You are arguing that under the current definition this is clearly not an exploit?


Someone else suggested firewalling a door fits the definition. Again a weak argument. The mobs are, again, doing *exactly* what they're programmed to do - go after the the person dishing out the damage. You have merely used in game tactics to prevent them from getting to said damage dealer. Some mobs are more intelligent and will range you. This is all by design.

Yours is the poor argument here. All mobs are always doing exactly what they are programed to do. ALWAYS! Mobs can't do anything but what they are programed to do. The point is that when the developers see that their programming has led to unforeseen consequences, they call it a bug or defect. This happens a lot. So asking if it is a bug or defect in the programming that mobs stand at a shield wall inside burning flames is a legitimate question, especially since it meets the other half of the definition of exploit - making completion of objectives way too easy.


Someone suggested that by not killing all mobs in a dungeon (yet finishing) that may meet the definition. Another outlandish proposition. The mechanism for finishing the quest is *not* to kill all the mobs. It is functioning as it is designed to do. In certain quests, by contrast, you *must* kill someone. If you find a way to complete that without killing said someone, then you've got a real candidate.

I'm confused, as long as we are completing the quest objectives we are ok then? It doesn't matter what tactics we use?


Someone suggested that b/c in Parts 4 and 5 of the Shroud, you have whirring blades, that there is still some danger and hence not an exploit. Please .... When your mother asks if you want toast do you criticize her for not specifying what type of bread? Or how toasty you want your toast???

First off, I don't get the toast thing. Second, the point is that under the only definition we have been given, the tactics used in part5 of the shroud are valid. I happen to agree that these tactics are valid and the rules are on my side at this point.


Arguing semantics is easy, because words are always defined by other words, hence you can always reduce the definition to some equivalent, and then argue that it does or does not definitively define (for you) what is an exploit. That's a bogus approach.

Actually it isn't easy for a lot of people. What IS easy is posting your views based on your gut instinct or personal preference, which doesn't require you to justify anything. Debating within the realm of logical argument requires a lot more thought than simply saying, "GEE GUYS, WHY CANT YOU SEE IM RITE?"


Taking a raid boss and causing him to stop moving, stop fighting, and stand still while you beat him to death is plainly a game bug or defect. If you can't see that, then you are simply refusing to be reasonable and time is better spent dealing with more reasonable people and more reasonable requests.

You are NOT the authority on what is and is not a game bug or defect. Many games have encounters that are designed exactly like this - if you go head to head with the enemy its a pain in the but, but through clever tactics you can reduce the fight to a cakewalk.

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

asking them to report on each other...
them doing it on their own...

does it matter?

I am sure there are a lot of disgruntled players that have some grudge against someone...'

who are just watching and waiting for the opportunity to report someone.

It is the broad definition, the no clear example...the open for debatedness that has been
encouraging everyone to close off from eachother, point fingers, name call and report.

the backlash is, ones who think they exploit often (or use a tactic some think are exploits) will
group with their kind...exclusively. keep it in guild...keep it in the circle...dont talk about it.

and the ones who think they never have and never will use even a cheesy maneuver--let alone an exploit!, will proclaim loudly enough to get reported...for something they never thought could be an exploit...

Fortunately, I think there might be the chance that those reading and researching will have better judgement...maybe.
and not ban us for casting a firewall/heal/shieldblocking/playing...breathing...

maybe, it will be taken for consideration...that some reporting are insane...and some are sane...

[jjflanigan]

No the definition is not satisfactory and I have no idea what the spirit of the rule is.



Hero has another component to it...only one character is ever in danger. Not because they are the one grabbing aggro, but because the rest of the party positions themselves such that they can't be hurt. Then they send in the "hero" to fight over and over again when he dies. 11 out of 12 people in a raid are in no danger, one person is. Furthermore, the raid itself is pretty much a guaranteed completion with this method. You are arguing that under the current definition this is clearly not an exploit?


At no point is the entire party safe from risk of the encounter MOB. Thus it is clearly not an exploit



Yours is the poor argument here. All mobs are always doing exactly what they are programed to do. ALWAYS! Mobs can't do anything but what they are programed to do. The point is that when the developers see that their programming has led to unforeseen consequences, they call it a bug or defect. This happens a lot. So asking if it is a bug or defect in the programming that mobs stand at a shield wall inside burning flames is a legitimate question, especially since it meets the other half of the definition of exploit - making completion of objectives way too easy.


This one would, under the letter of the law, be an exploit. It is taking advantage of the fact that the AI cannot realize it can't get to the main damage dealing target so they stand there and attack no one. This gets you to a point the entire party is safe from risk of the encounter mob.




I'm confused, as long as we are completing the quest objectives we are ok then? It doesn't matter what tactics we use?

First off, I don't get the toast thing. Second, the point is that under the only definition we have been given, the tactics used in part5 of the shroud are valid. I happen to agree that these tactics are valid and the rules are on my side at this point.


No, because you are performing an action that causes the AI to stop functioning entirely. The entire party is safe from risk of the encounter MOB (the blades are not the encounter, they are just "area traps"), so it is an exploit.

It's not ALL common sense, but a lot of it is. So many people have started spouting off things just to try to be rude and insulting to the information Turbine gave. People give really inane "examples" of an exploit to try to prove the point that the definition isn't solid enough. If you refuse to think about things, you can find a counter example to ANY argument. Like a comedian once said -- "If your dumb enough than anything could really be called 'I can't believe it's not butter'"

[Gabrion]

At no point is the entire party safe from risk of the encounter MOB. Thus it is clearly not an exploit

And the current definition doesn't say the whole team has to be free from risk. Actually it says "without cost or risk to the player or team. So maybe the hero isn't exploiting but everyone else is?


No, because you are performing an action that causes the AI to stop functioning entirely. The entire party is safe from risk of the encounter MOB (the blades are not the encounter, they are just "area traps"), so it is an exploit.

1) There are no guarantees - he can be active for some time and then stop. During the time he's active I'm at pretty high risk.
2) Explain to me how the blades aren't part of the encounter?


It's not ALL common sense, but a lot of it is. So many people have started spouting off things just to try to be rude and insulting to the information Turbine gave. People give really inane "examples" of an exploit to try to prove the point that the definition isn't solid enough. If you refuse to think about things, you can find a counter example to ANY argument. Like a comedian once said -- "If your dumb enough than anything could really be called 'I can't believe it's not butter'"

And yet again we have someone giving the "common sense" answers only to find out they aren't quite airtight after all. I'm not even saying your interpretation is ultimately different from Turbine's (I wish I knew...but they aren't giving out that information), but it isn't supported by the info we have right now.

[Gypsy_Mouse]

Whether or not the playerbase should be punished for exploiting in game bugs is a different question (in my view). I personally do not think they should be. Its a personal decision, and I do not feel that Turbine should punish us for taking advantage of their mistakes. What they should do is fix the underlying issue. If that means some folks will get unfair advantages in the interim - oh well. If those players choose to play that way, then so be it. Our collective energies can be spent on more important things - like fixing the major exploits/bugs (i.e. Raid bosses who can be immunized) and creating new content.



I agree completely.


Furthermore, if the bug/exploit is such a huge f'ing deal, then why don't they just shut down the last two parts until it's fixed? :confused:

So people won't be able to craft with the last alter until it's fixed or tack on yet another raid completion. Big deal.
There's plenty of ingredient farming and looting to be done in the other parts. Plenty of other raids to do.

Yet, why in the world should people get banned for taking advantage of Turbine's poor QA with a major quest?

Who is it hurting? You? Turbine? Me?

When all is said and done, nothing in this game matters in our respective real lives. We're not going to go to hell for making a pixelated battle easier by cheese tactics. :rolleyes:

It's a game. As in all games, some people cheat.

The difference here is that the cheating isn't hurting your fellow players. You're not stealing their stash of goodies, you're not hogging all the resources (I'm still miffed about my cousin hogging all the good Legos), you're not competing in any way.

So if you don't like the way a quest is being accomplished, drop group, vow to never play with those cheaters again, and move on.

As for myself, I'm indifferent. It's a game, I play it to enjoy myself. If a quest is made easier by someone else, fine. If they want to do a clean run for a bigger challenge, fine.

In the end, I just want the **** loot.

[Aspenor]

According to the current definition by Turbine, there are three conditions that all must be met for it to be a bannable exploit.
-you must purposely use a bug or error in the programming
-you must not use any resources
-you must not be subject to any risk

All three conditions must be met.

These points are all clear in Turbine's posting history.

[Angelus_dead]

According to the current definition by Turbine, there are three conditions that all must be met for it to be a bannable exploit.
That is not true. If you paste or link the announcement where you think they said that, I can explain how you misunderstood.

[Gabrion]

According to the current definition by Turbine, there are three conditions that all must be met for it to be a bannable exploit.
-you must use a bug or error in the programming
-you must not use any resources
-you must not be subject to any risk

All three conditions must be met.

Actually the very first condition is that it has to be a "purposeful activity" .

[Aspenor]

Actually the very first condition is that it has to be a "purposeful activity" .

Touche.

[Aspenor]

questions are fun

[Oreg]

Nope, I haven't received a response about my Hero Method question either, but how about you PM me yours and I'll PM you mine. Then we can respond to each other on whether each thing is an exploit and be content with those answers.

'sides, I actually do like you! :)

Let me know the response on the Hero method because if they say that is an exploit then I will be utterly confused with their protocol. Resources are expended, a player does get hit and takes significant damage, a wipe can still occur with some bad timing etc.,

[Aspenor]

Let me know the response on the Hero method because if they say that is an exploit then I will be utterly confused with their protocol. Resources are expended, a player does get hit and takes significant damage, a wipe can still occur with some bad timing etc.,

The Hero Method is a CONFIRMED TACTIC. It's not even on the radar of an exploit.

[Baron]

Manners count

[Oreg]

*removed as requested*

[Darkwolf]

how about you PM me yours and I'll PM you mine.

I know it's childish, but that just sounds dirty. :eek:

I know, I know... grow up.

[CrimsonEagle]

So, a few days ago I sent a PM, to cubie, kobold and Q about something I thought was an exploit.

From their lack of response...it has been been 4 days...either they received so many responses/PMs about the "E" word that they could not respond to mine...
Or, It wasn't an E..

They were going to get back to us...right?

Should I send more questions to them about assumed E's?

Should I just wait a few more days?

I don't want any real details...but did anyone get a response form a PM?

Maybe they just don't like me..
/cry

Or perhaps it is something else all together.

Perhaps, after all this time of players asking for more communication/interaction with the creators of this game, the creators of this game decided to give it a try with the hopes that those who love this game would give constructive criticism/feedback that would help the game evolve....help them to create a better game for all.

Perhaps they knowingly exposed themselves, giving those who play this game a chance to prove that they were not the mob that they appeared to be, perhaps they decided they had to have faith that people would react positively to this generous offer.

Perhaps they reeled in horror as the mobs showed their true colors in its full and disgusting glory, grabbing the back of the heads of this game and smashing it into the ground over and over again without remorse but instead with a gleeful rage at the newfound freedom.

Perhaps, rather than staying to take this abuse, they hung their head in sorrow with the full understanding that mobs cannot reason, cannot think, cannot make reasonable judgment nor reasonable argument.

Perhaps they also realize that the mob does not want to even try to understand things from their point of view but would rather act out in a blind rage based on false assumptions.

Perhaps they came to the conclusion that, as the battle rages on in the forums, a battle that they left rather than stay and fight, a battle that they knew they could not win, they have once again withdrawn into the folds of secrecy with an understanding that this is a mistake they must never make again.

Perhaps this will be our punishment, a punishment well deserved. Silence. The masses do not deserve anything. They have proved through their own actions, and continue to prove in these forums that although for ages many have asked for open communication, we have not earned, nor do we deserve this right.

Perhaps, those who understand what I say as being a very real possibility should respond to any future post requesting that the creators of this game be more open and forthright should respond with a simple, "We do not deserve it". Nothing more, nothing less.

Or, perhaps you are right Yvonne. Perhaps they just don't like you.

Only the creators of this great game, flaws and all, know what their reasoning is. I do not think it would be something as petty as "not liking you". I think its more a sadness at the realization of just how debased the population of their little creation....their little world....their little gem really is.

To those who would come after. Those who would come in their usual arrogance and narcissistic self righteousness, don't bother. Your slander, your quaint little insults, your vileness will fall on deaf ears. They will only help to re enforce who you really are. Not who you think you are, but who you really are.

Crimson.

[Mhykke]

I've received a response from KK.


Mhykke's thoughts below, not from KK:

As to the hero method, I don't think that's considered an exploit. It may be cheesy, but not an exploit. Mobs have aggro meters, and respond to the person doing the most damage to them. I know I've been in groups where someone screws up and people standing in the spot in back take damage and die, and parties have wiped. If this were an exploit, someone taking aggro while others in the back who aren't in danger heal them, then any cleric or healing character who heals the party while standing behind the party is also exploiting, b/c the cleric isn't getting aggro and is in no danger unless aggroer dies. The only way Turbine could change this is to make mob aggro completely random, which would, be pretty stupid.

[Gabrion]

To those who would come after. Those who would come in their usual arrogance and narcissistic self righteousness, don't bother. Your slander, your quaint little insults, your vileness will fall on deaf ears. They will only help to re enforce who you really are. Not who you think you are, but who you really are.

Crimson.

Some of use make reasonable arguments critiquing the actions of the game developers and just because we didn't bow down and worship them we are the slobbering, idiotic, and "debased?"

You on the other hand come here calling us the slobbering, idiotic, and "debased" masses, and yet somehow we are narcissistic and self righteous?

Confused.

[CrimsonEagle]

Some of use make reasonable arguments critiquing the actions of the game developers and just because we didn't bow down and worship them we are the slobbering, idiotic, and "debased?"

You on the other hand come here calling us the slobbering, idiotic, and "debased" masses, and yet somehow we are narcissistic and self righteous?

Confused.

Did it occur to you that I may not have been talking about you?

You may have in fact made reasonable arguments. You may have refrained from using insults and flames. You may not have carried this topic from the thread that was intended out into the open forums to make a point of your displeasure.

I never said to bow down and worship them, nor would I want anyone too.

Some insist on being unreasonable, not use reasonable arguments but resort to name calling, insults and flames. If you consider this to be "reasonable argument", then I will have to politely disagree.

Am I narcissistic? Possibly. Am I being judgmental based on beliefs I hold at this point in time? Absolutely.

Can you prove to me....convince me through reasonable arguments that I am wrong in my belief that the use of insults, flame's and anger in debate/discussion is not only counter productive but harmful to any form of agreement/compromise/understanding?

Did I happen to mention anyone specifically when I said debased masses?

It is unfortunate, but the actions of some reflect on all. When facing a crowd, those who rule us cannot look at those in the crowd who have peaceful intents. They must look at those who are there with less than peaceful intent and consider the whole "mass"/ crowd to be a threat, and yes, I did say rule you. The only freedom you really have is that which they allow.

[jjflanigan]

2) Explain to me how the blades aren't part of the encounter?

Seriously? Do you fight the blades? Can you target the blades? Can you destroy the blades? The blades are an aspect of the environment, but they are not part of the encounter MOB that you have to defeat.

[Pellegro]

Great post Crimson. Insightful and poetic.

I just hope you're wrong. :p

[Gabrion]

Did it occur to you that I may not have been talking about you?

I'm part of the masses and I'm on the other side of the issue from you.


Can you prove to me....convince me through reasonable arguments that I am wrong in my belief that the use of insults, flame's and anger in debate/discussion is not only counter productive but harmful to any form of agreement/compromise/understanding?

Since your post was insulting and flaming, I have to assume that either you don't believe what you just said, or you were trying to be counter-productive and harmful.


Did I happen to mention anyone specifically when I said debased masses?

Actually naming specifics wouldn't make a lot of sense if you are talking about the masses. And again, as long as you continue to aim your insults at "the masses," those of use who fit that description will assume you are talking to us.


Seriously? Do you fight the blades? Can you target the blades? Can you destroy the blades? The blades are an aspect of the environment, but they are not part of the encounter MOB that you have to defeat.

Dude, the environment is part of any encounter. Especially in D+D.

[captain1z]

Seriously? Do you fight the blades? Can you target the blades? Can you destroy the blades? The blades are an aspect of the environment, but they are not part of the encounter MOB that you have to defeat.
the blades are cheap hp chippers and need a save or roll to hit....... just my opinion

[Pellegro]

No the definition is not satisfactory and I have no idea what the spirit of the rule is.

...
You are NOT the authority on what is and is not a game bug or defect.

Hmm. Well, as Turbine has stated ... if you have to ask, it probably is an exploit. I guess for those who have a hard time understanding the spirit of the rule, you can fall back on that interprative standard.

And I'll agree with you that I am not the authority on anything. But I really don't have this great dilemna that you are professing in terms of recognizing exploits or not.

Jumping up and over boxes? Hmm ... I guess if you want to mince words perhaps it fits the definition. Its clearly in my mind *not* an exploit however.

Hero method doesn't smell like an exploit to me either. I guess you have probs with that one too ...

But the funniest part of your retort is your comment on bugging out Harry. I just gotta quote this again:


Many games have encounters that are designed exactly like this - if you go head to head with the enemy its a pain in the but, but through clever tactics you can reduce the fight to a cakewalk.
I mean, seriously ... you're defending BUGGING a Raid Boss out as a possible non-exploit???!!!??? Man if you can honestly type that ... that there is even a SHRED of question in your mind as to whether or not causing the raid boss to BUG OUT is or is not an exploit, then we simply cannot engage in a useful debate. Its like we're talking different languages at that point, because whatever the words "exploit" or "bug" mean to you -- they're not what they mean to me.

[Turial]

Out of curiosity is this your thoughts or what KK said? I thinking they are your thoughts but would like to know for sure.
I've received a response from KK.


As to the hero method, I don't think that's considered an exploit. It may be cheesy, but not an exploit. Mobs have aggro meters, and respond to the person doing the most damage to them. I know I've been in groups where someone screws up and people standing in the spot in back take damage and die, and parties have wiped. If this were an exploit, someone taking aggro while others in the back who aren't in danger heal them, then any cleric or healing character who heals the party while standing behind the party is also exploiting, b/c the cleric isn't getting aggro and is in no danger unless aggroer dies. The only way Turbine could change this is to make mob aggro completely random, which would, be pretty stupid.

[Pellegro]

Pellegro -

You are making assumptions on how the mobs are supposed to interact with PCs. You don't know that for sure. This is part of what is being asked of Turbine. Is Velah coded correctly to ignore the 11 people hiding back there and only attack the buffed fighter in front of her nose? A lot of players come from a PnP background and find this encounter preposterous. If it is therefore a coding error, by doing it you are exploiting tat code for an easier win. If it is working as intended, Turbine should say so.

Now there are other things that can also be seen as potential exploits in the eyes of Turbine based on their previous actions. Most groups in VoN5 used to just have a tank or three jump up onto the ladder, and clear up top. This ignored the pretty fire jet to boost you up to the top by coordinating 4 people to hit levers. Turbine shortened the ladder. This can therefore be interpreted as them ficing an exploit. If you follow that logic, it then becomes possible that Turbine consider using the big box in Bonebite to avoid half the mobs in the dungeon an exploit. Are they going to remove that box at some point? Was it an oversight? Is it functioning as part of the design for that quest?

PS: If any of that was too specific, or gave away too many details, please don't give me any infraction points. Rather just ban my forum account, and I'll talk to other adults ingame. I grow weary of the childish slaps on the wrist, gags to meaningful discussion etc. Not trying to anger/inflame here, but if this post violates the rules for discussion on the forums, then there is very little being discussed at all.
Take CO6 part 2. People used to zerg to the end for easy easy xp, fighting nothing on the way. Was that an exploit? Turbine added doors and made the end fight compulsory, effectively stopping that behaviour. Does this mean that I should not zerg past all the mobs in say Delera's part 2? Should I engage and clear each room? Where does 'exploit' start and end? The spirit of the definition is NOT clear in my opinion.

Are there bugs and flaws that are blatant exploits? Of course, I don't dispute that. The fact that there is a way to repeat part 2 of a quest chain over and over again without completing the other parts or restarting and doing part 1 again is almost certainly an exploit. It has been around, and been used since I started playing however, and nothing has ever been done to stop it. Which creates doubt in the minds of some, is it intended? I personally don't think so, but my opinion is not the one that counts for infractions and bans.

Excellent response - thanks.

I don't think any of the things you mention are exploits (except for the last paragraph). I don't think Turbine thinks any of those are exploits either. Every one of those examples is using an intended in game skill or ability to avoid a discrete problem that has presented itself. I also don't think that their "fixing" any of those things means it WAS an exploit. Finding ways to "win" is part of the game .... Using environments, using high jump skills, using sneak/run while invisible - those are all parts of the game. The fact that they changed it just means they weren't happy with how it was going.

That's just me ... I speak for no one. Not even the trees.

[doodooman]

What he was trying to say was exploiters found a way to get DOUBLE their UMD

[CrimsonEagle]

I'm part of the masses and I'm on the other side of the issue from you.



Since your post was insulting and flaming, I have to assume that either you don't believe what you just said, or you were trying to be counter-productive and harmful.



Actually naming specifics wouldn't make a lot of sense if you are talking about the masses. And again, as long as you continue to aim your insults at "the masses," those of use who fit that description will assume you are talking to us.


Perhaps.

Good luck in game as well as in life.

(Kicks dust from boots as he moves on.)

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

Hey crimson...You did understand that the "maybe they don't like me /cry thing was....a joke...right?:confused:
:p
lol.
I was agreeing with you till you punched me in the face...:confused:
How dare you hit a girl!:mad:
/cry:(

I don't think he likes me!:(
:eek:
/cry:rolleyes:
:D:p:D:p

[Kistilan]

Hey crimson...*snips out tons of emotional faces and things*

You're very emotional. VERY emotional. Coffee?

[Pyromaniac]

Someone may have answered the OP already, but apparently we will be receiving a list in about a week or so. The only official feedback is on a certain quest in the original thread on the topic.

So now I won't be running that specific quest until the rest of the server is informed as to the new rules, as I am not the police.

For anything else, it appears to be anything goes until we have the final list - as long as it doesn't violate the somewhat grey definition thats been posted.

[Mhykke]

Out of curiosity is this your thoughts or what KK said? I thinking they are your thoughts but would like to know for sure.


Sorry, didn't mean to confuse the 2.

Yep, those were my thoughts.

Changing my original post.

[Kistilan]

Everyone in this thread knows they opened the official Sploits thread back up, right? It's in a different D&DO Stormreach Forum. The KK is getting back with answers to all the legitimate questions. Don't spam the thread because it's not for discussion/debate, but questions only. Opinions need to be checked at the door, but questions please continue to spam.

[Dungnmaster001]

Ok... But i am paranoid...just say others might be paranoid too...could happen.

To me, that means, If I have found a way not to die in the quest I am doing the "E" again.

That means, to me, If I do not get hit by MOBs I snipe I am an "E"er
(dodge left fire dodge right fire)even doing this there is a risk, I've done this and mistimed incoming fire and took a hit. And while it's extremely unlikely that I could die from doing this, there is still risk involved. And a cost in healing resources for when I do get hit

If I do not face the MOBs in all my glory, sand still and take it like a 600HP 60AC tank I am a "E".

I use "TACTICS".

I rarely stand still, I run MOBS around in circles, I use FW agro to keep them in the FW...I carry what I need..I get by without what I cannot get...my sorc has no raid gear and prevails..(E)Again using these tactics you CAN get hit/take damage/waste resources. Therefore not an exploit in most cases

If I run a loot run 15 times and do not die...I start to think...I am an "E"er.
A rich, bags full, experienced, proficient, devious, monster, unscrupulous, tactical, nuker of an EXPLOITER..

There...i said it.

Haven't read the rest of the posts after this but yours caught my eye. comments in red. The part of the definition that hangs most people up is "without risk" that doesn't mean things like kiting, since that does have risk involved. It means things like finding a spot in a dungeon where nothing can hit you at all, then ranging it. Example My dwarf fighter runs up to an ogre and trips it. Ogre's lying on his back while I kill him. No risk to me right? Wrong: he could resist the trip, he could stand back up before I kill him, etc. There is still risk. The flipside, lets say I'm questing and find a rock that while solid I can still fire ranged weapons through... odd, must be a bug. but if I stand behind that rock and range a mob and his weapons can't get through. Yep that's an exploit. (unrealistic and very obvious exploit, but I used it to make a point) Things like that rock won't get widely spread in most cases (most groups don't have the patience to wait for a normal mob to be killed like that, FoD and move on...unless the mob on the other side of the rock is a boss...or even worse a raid boss. In which case that hypothetical rock would spread through the community and everyone would begin using it. Someone would likely even try to defend it saying it was put there on purpose by Turbine :rolleyes: to reward creative players.

[moorewr]

Hee! "The Abbot? Mission Accomplished."

[Altarboy]

Exploiters are like Nixon..."I'm not a crook"

Former Exploiters who hide thier exploiting are like Bill..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or better yet "I didn't inhale"


Turbine after a MOD release are like Bush..."Mission Accomplished"....ummm OK

Non Exploiters are like **** Cheney in a hunting party with friends..."OOPs"....they just got a report button not a shotgun thank the Gods

People who ride the fence are just scared of commitment cause they never want to get locked down into having to see they same person in the morning and having the same talk about how we never talk about how we feel or bring them flowers or hold thier hands anymore how we never put the toliet seat backdown or do the dishes or hangout with our friends and not them.....ummmm wait got off track there. Or maybe I didn't.

LOL the vice presidents 1st named got changed to ****....so if someone is being a **** on the forums we should start saying stop being a Cheney!!!

**clapclap** Nice job!

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

You're very emotional. VERY emotional. Coffee?
Actually, most of my posts ate done by my alter ego or my alts...
most who know me (or think they do) think I am lifeless as a...mhmmm...

I though of a lot of analogies...meh..
a successfully finger of death'ed gelatinous cube...

[query]

*Gives Yvonne a prescription and a bottle of refilling Bi-Polar removal pills (when the prescription is updated of course.)*

Feel better?

I used to be down, but Turbine apparently gave me pills too since my lag is MUCH BETTER now! *Said in that scary calm voice of the insane who think they are not.*

Edit: (Guild members may also chuckle at the inside joke.)



Actually, most of my posts ate done by my alter ego or my alts...
most who know me (or think they do) think I am lifeless as a...mhmmm...

I though of a lot of analogies...meh..
a successfully finger of death'ed gelatinous cube...

[Kistilan]

Actually, most of my posts ate done by my alter ego or my alts...
most who know me (or think they do) think I am lifeless as a...mhmmm...

I though of a lot of analogies...meh..
a successfully finger of death'ed gelatinous cube...

Sooo, what you're saying is.... you're a vampire? /signsonfortheride I'll jump at a chance to hang with a vampy.

[Zuldar]

Here's how I figure if something's an exploit or not.

If you're playing pnp and a dm tells you no you can't do that it's probably an exploit. If a dm tells you wow I hadn't thought of that, it's probably ok. So just imagine what a dm would say to what you want to do.

[ENGRAV0]

LoL, on that subject then, here is something to ponder:

Many say that utilization of third party software from outside the game to give you a benefit inside the game is an obvious exploit.

Ok, Ready.. I thknk some are not going to like this.....

Puzzle Solver for part three of the Shroud.....

Ready, here is another thing to contemplate.....

Internet Explorer....To find all those recipees we all hold so dear to us.

So, there can be NO true generic definition of the rule of what is, isn't an exploit. Because if so, EVERYONE would be guilty of using them, including the Devs. LoL.

Thus another supporting factor in that the Devs and Forum GODS that be need to come out with their (supposed) listing of what IS and what ISN'T exploiting. Not only that, keep it up to date. That means, if need be, designate ONE person who has clear and available access to the ever growing list to Update it Weekly, EVERY week, and make a post added to the bottom of which says that it was updated. Lock the thread after updating it, delete the older posts that simply say updated, and if people want to respond to something that is in there, they can PM said individual, or whomever Turbine decides. But, at NO time should it EVER be out of date. It would eliminate some of the paprazzi Player Police, reduce (If it din't almost entirely remove) the reserves that a good deal of us are having regarding pugging. Which would go a good deal towards encouraging more team work again, with people you may not know.

You make a list, I see something that concerns me, but isn't on the list. I send a PM, and get a reply saying YES, or NO, and if it is a YES, then that goes on the next Update to the list of exploits. Regular updates eliminate the excuses, but you HAVE to lock the thread so that WE, the Players, don't take the thread and turn it into a 20 page essay, which would make it unreasonable to manage. We can always make a new thread regarding questions, and send specifics that are in question via PMs, and I for one would gladly do this, if I at least got a PM back saying Yes, or NO, regarding the questionable behavior.

Thank you

[Draclaud]

eaten by cube

Please keep Politics out of our gaming forum. Not everyone agrees with your assumptions, and you're just asking for a flame war.

[ENGRAV0]

Please keep Politics out of our gaming forum. Not everyone agrees with your assumptions, and you're just asking for a flame war.

/Signed, was avoiding even a simple reply, wasn't worth what it would do to the thread.

[Oreg]

LoL, on that subject then, here is something to ponder:

Many say that utilization of third party software from outside the game to give you a benefit inside the game is an obvious exploit.

Ok, Ready.. I thknk some are not going to like this.....

Puzzle Solver for part three of the Shroud.....

Ready, here is another thing to contemplate.....

Internet Explorer....To find all those recipees we all hold so dear to us.

So, there can be NO true generic definition of the rule of what is, isn't an exploit. Because if so, EVERYONE would be guilty of using them, including the Devs. LoL.

Thus another supporting factor in that the Devs and Forum GODS that be need to come out with their (supposed) listing of what IS and what ISN'T exploiting. Not only that, keep it up to date. That means, if need be, designate ONE person who has clear and available access to the ever growing list to Update it Weekly, EVERY week, and make a post added to the bottom of which says that it was updated. Lock the thread after updating it, delete the older posts that simply say updated, and if people want to respond to something that is in there, they can PM said individual, or whomever Turbine decides. But, at NO time should it EVER be out of date. It would eliminate some of the paprazzi Player Police, reduce (If it din't almost entirely remove) the reserves that a good deal of us are having regarding pugging. Which would go a good deal towards encouraging more team work again, with people you may not know.

You make a list, I see something that concerns me, but isn't on the list. I send a PM, and get a reply saying YES, or NO, and if it is a YES, then that goes on the next Update to the list of exploits. Regular updates eliminate the excuses, but you HAVE to lock the thread so that WE, the Players, don't take the thread and turn it into a 20 page essay, which would make it unreasonable to manage. We can always make a new thread regarding questions, and send specifics that are in question via PMs, and I for one would gladly do this, if I at least got a PM back saying Yes, or NO, regarding the questionable behavior.

Thank you

Which is why this whole topic is moot until Turbine releases their list of "exploits". And I guarantee you that puzzle solvers, Ron's character builder and IE won't be on it. So you can sleep easier tonight. ;)

[Kistilan]

Which is why this whole topic is moot until Turbine releases their list of "exploits". And I guarantee you that puzzle solvers, Ron's character builder and IE won't be on it. So you can sleep easier tonight. ;)

Are you sure? Yvonne is supposedly a Vampire, after all. The Undead do not make for easy sleeping!!! The FoD'd One walks the night.

[ENGRAV0]

Which is why this whole topic is moot until Turbine releases their list of "exploits". And I guarantee you that puzzle solvers, Ron's character builder and IE won't be on it. So you can sleep easier tonight. ;)

Sorry Oreg, I am fully aware that they wont (or would be, well, EXTREMELY SHOCKED!) be there. More to the point that so many were trying so hard to make every little thing one, and issue generic examples of what they considered plain and simply, an [E]. Again, just that where you think you have a simple solution, only a detailed answer is going to put peoples minds at ease.

[baddax]

If you have to ask its probably an exploit! Easy solution (easier said than done) is to fix the in game problems not try and stop people from using it. One of my favorite sayings is "locks are only to keep honest people out". So as long as thier are loop holes people will take advantage of it. So in my opionon it is a waste of time to try and "describe what is or is not an exploit" as most people will know the answer anyways. The one who dont are either noobs or, well ill let u guys fill in the blank........... and my guess is most developers know about them but either are to busy to fix them or their is some difficulty in fixing the problem.

[BlueLightBandit]

Taking a raid boss and causing him to stop moving, stop fighting, and stand still while you beat him to death is plainly a game bug or defect. If you can't see that, then you are simply refusing to be reasonable and time is better spent dealing with more reasonable people and more reasonable requests.

If I do it with a pet, is it any different than if I do it with the rogue?

What if I do the same thing in a doorway with three fighters and a pally?

Common sense is starting to get a bit... unreasonable here.

[BlueLightBandit]

Are you sure? Yvonne is supposedly a Vampire, after all. The Undead do not make for easy sleeping!!! The FoD'd One walks the night.

Supposedly?

Heh, riiiiiiight.

[transtemporal]

I report e______s all the time and I haven't heard back. Just a few of the important e______s I have reported:

players not loading the right spells
using the wrong spell at the wrong time
toons dancing inappropriately
rocks being the wrong colour
mobs doing too much damage
mobs not doing enough damage
not getting enough loot
halflings being too creepy
casters charming the mob I was killing
other toons jumping higher than my toon
groups using a quest strategy I didn't devise

[soupertc]

Please keep Politics out of our gaming forum. Not everyone agrees with your assumptions, and you're just asking for a flame war.

if you were able to maybe sense sarcasm dripping from my post you might not have been so easily offended. I wasn't expecting anyone to agree with me nor should I. If people maybe were able to joke around a bit more and take a joke the world might be a better place. So if ya want to flame me go for it!!!! I got thick skin. Besides it gives me chuckles.

The problem with forums or the written form is people can't sense sarcasm.....they misunderstand what the person is tryin to say. I hope that was the case with you, cause if it wasn't......oh well.

[Yvonne_Blacksword]

uh...lol...

I dated a vampire once...
heh...
is it contagious?

[The_Mighty_Cube]

You know the return of KK doesn't mean the regular forum rules about being respectful to other users are on hold. Can we go back to having discussions without slinging around insults and name calling and breaking every other rule in the book? If I have to keep eating so many posts/threads, pretty soon I'm going to be a Gelatinous Beach Ball! :eek: :(