Gone like many others...

[Vhlad]

Thanks for pointing out the word MAY. I really needed that pointed out to me. Thank you so so much.

Although, I think I need to quote myself here.

Saying "doing anything that is not intended can get you banned" is great. Except how are we supposed to know what is intended?

Do you see the word CAN? Do you understand what CAN means?

Usage note:
Can and may are frequently but not always interchangeable in senses indicating possibility: A power failure can (or may) occur at any time. Despite the insistence by some, that can means only “to be able” and may means “to be permitted,” both are regularly used in seeking or granting permission: Can (or May) I borrow your tape recorder? You can (or may) use it tomorrow. Sentences using can occur chiefly in spoken English. May in this sense occurs more frequently in formal contexts: May I address the court, Your Honor? In negative constructions, can't or cannot is more common than may not: You can't have it today. I need it myself. The contraction mayn't is rare.

I could go on, but I think I'm done with that point.

[Vhlad]

Some points on game design:

Allowing characters to enter completed quests is a design choice. It is not a bug or a flaw. It is 100% intended by development design for characters to be able to enter completed quests. Whether or not that will change, due to assorted consequences of this design decision, remains to be seen.

Proof that this is a design choice is simple: One of the game updates allowed characters who started a quest and zoned out before completion to zone back in to get XP and completion after the rest of the party completed it (so long as someone held the instance open). Another game update (possibly the same one?) allowed characters to loot chests that were opened by others so long as they were in the group. This was a change from what was required before (which was, the character had to be inside the quest).

Now, let us re-examine part of what you said, bearing the above in mind:

The game is designed around the player making a character, running through the quests offered and that character getting the rewards for that quest.

Some items, the more powerful ones, can't be traded, they are intended to stay with the CHARACTER that completed the quest and was given or won the right to loot that unique rare item. Not the player, or the account, the Character.

So a character that doesn't complete a quest in the fashion it's designed to be completed, shouldn't be getting that loot.

By design decision, a character can start a quest, zone in, then zone out, while the rest of the party does everything, kills everything, and be fully 100% able to zone back in at the end, get every chest, and get every reward (so long as they were in the party, and were in the quest at one point (for say, 2 seconds) before completion. In fact, that character can be running a completely different quest simultaneously.

An application would be, 3 people do pop and 3 people do crucible (each member zones in each quest and swaps). Each group finishes in under 20 min. They then swap quests, get XP for both, and loot for both.

Exploit? Bannable?

There are many examples of actions that are somewhat questionable, but are 100% within the game mechanics. Using the dragonmark quest free respec token to take a non dragonmark feat is an example I mentioned earlier.

Is it so unreasonable in certain cases to ask for clarification on what is bannable? Is it so unreasonable to expect an answer, especially when in-game GM's specifically ask you to ask for an answer?

The rules can't layout every type of situation. All they can do is give a guide. It's pretty simple. Play the game as it's intended.

Until I find a crystal ball, I cannot fully 100% know what is intended. Maybe it is intended for us to be able to take any feat from the free dragonmark token quest? I don't know why you are so against people thinking they have the right to get an official answer when they ask what will get them banned from a game they are paying monthly for.

[Ziggy]

Some points on game design:

Allowing characters to enter completed quests is a design choice. It is not a bug or a flaw. It is 100% intended by development design for characters to be able to enter completed quests. Whether or not that will change, due to assorted consequences of this design decision, remains to be seen.

Proof that this is a design choice is simple: One of the game updates allowed characters who started a quest and zoned out before completion to zone back in to get XP and completion after the rest of the party completed it (so long as someone held the instance open). Another game update (possibly the same one?) allowed characters to loot chests that were opened by others so long as they were in the group. This was a change from what was required before (which was, the character had to be inside the quest).

Now, let us re-examine part of what you said, bearing the above in mind:



By design decision, a character can start a quest, zone in, then zone out, while the rest of the party does everything, kills everything, and be fully 100% able to zone back in at the end, get every chest, and get every reward (so long as they were in the party, and were in the quest at one point (for say, 2 seconds) before completion. In fact, that character can be running a completely different quest simultaneously.

An application would be, 3 people do pop and 3 people do crucible (each member zones in each quest and swaps). Each group finishes in under 20 min. They then swap quests, get XP for both, and loot for both.

Exploit? Bannable?

I believe the answer is dumb. Because of the -80% XP late entry fee.
and you have to be in the party when the chest is looted, not just be in the quest at the start or end.

[Vhlad]

I believe the answer is dumb. Because of the -80% XP late entry fee.
and you have to be in the party when the chest is looted, not just be in the quest at the start or end.

Maybe I wasn't clear. You zone in first, then zone out to swap quests. There will be no XP late entry fee, because you were in there early.

People in the same party can run different quests. I never mentioned anything about leaving party.

[Dane_McArdy]

Maybe I wasn't clear. You zone in first, then zone out to swap quests. There will be no XP late entry fee, because you were in there early.

People in the same party can run different quests. I never mentioned anything about leaving party.

But that's not what was being talked about in the thread that got deleted. Like I said, have to be vague because talking about details will get the thread deleted.

[Dane_McArdy]

Thanks for pointing out the word MAY. I really needed that pointed out to me. Thank you so so much.

Although, I think I need to quote myself here.



Do you see the word CAN? Do you understand what CAN means?

Usage note:
Can and may are frequently but not always interchangeable in senses indicating possibility: A power failure can (or may) occur at any time. Despite the insistence by some, that can means only “to be able” and may means “to be permitted,” both are regularly used in seeking or granting permission: Can (or May) I borrow your tape recorder? You can (or may) use it tomorrow. Sentences using can occur chiefly in spoken English. May in this sense occurs more frequently in formal contexts: May I address the court, Your Honor? In negative constructions, can't or cannot is more common than may not: You can't have it today. I need it myself. The contraction mayn't is rare.

I could go on, but I think I'm done with that point.

Really? Read the part I colored. To me that seems to be saying, sometimes can and may can be used in the same manner.

So, saying some actions MAY or some actions CAN get you banned seem to be saying the same thing.

But what your point is, I can't fully understand.

[Ziggy]

Maybe I wasn't clear. You zone in first, then zone out to swap quests. There will be no XP late entry fee, because you were in there early.

People in the same party can run different quests. I never mentioned anything about leaving party.

ok its a little more clear to me. BUt someone is still gonna get hit with either a late entry or re-entry.

So its not like your cheating the system. There are penalties already in place for this mechanic.

As to the Loot, ok guess ya got me there. Im on the fence about what to call that though.

[Reversion]

If I do THIS, will I get banned?
"I dont think so, but ask XXXX to make sure"

In game GMs asked again.
"I dont think so, but ask XXXX or YYYY to make sure"

The question is centered around the above. Turbine has not answered the question through PMs or on the forums, when Vhlad was instructed to do so twice by in-game support. In-game also told him that it wasn't an exploit, in their opinion, but that he should ask for the answer here (either PMs or Forum post). Both have been done, and he still hasn't received an answer.

Scenario: Guild A follows in game support's opinion and at a later date gets banned for doing it. No official comment has been made, but they asked repeatedly if it was an exploit and were never answered outside of in game saying it wasn't bannable. If Guild A in the wrong for doing something that they were told was okay to do?

All that is being sought here is confirmation on what was told to them. An answer in PMs would help, but something, even remotely vague, would benefit the community. Something as simple as saying: "The Stormreaver is working properly."

[Ziggy]

The question is centered around the above. Turbine has not answered the question through PMs or on the forums, when Vhlad was instructed to do so twice by in-game support. In-game also told him that it wasn't an exploit, in their opinion, but that he should ask for the answer here (either PMs or Forum post). Both have been done, and he still hasn't received an answer.

Scenario: Guild A follows in game support's opinion and at a later date gets banned for doing it. No official comment has been made, but they asked repeatedly if it was an exploit and were never answered outside of in game saying it wasn't bannable. If Guild A in the wrong for doing something that they were told was okay to do?

All that is being sought here is confirmation on what was told to them. An answer in PMs would help, but something, even remotely vague, would benefit the community. Something as simple as saying: "The Stormreaver is working properly."

One could also take the idea that every thread detailing the "is this an exploit" thing, has been deleted by turbine.

ANd they only do that for threads that detail exploits. They normally lock "bad" threads, but when it details an exploit they delete it. So odds are good if 2 or more threads detailing X are erased by turbine, its probably an exploit and dont do it.

[Ulf]

The question is centered around the above. Turbine has not answered the question through PMs or on the forums, when Vhlad was instructed to do so twice by in-game support. In-game also told him that it wasn't an exploit, in their opinion, but that he should ask for the answer here (either PMs or Forum post). Both have been done, and he still hasn't received an answer.

Scenario: Guild A follows in game support's opinion and at a later date gets banned for doing it. No official comment has been made, but they asked repeatedly if it was an exploit and were never answered outside of in game saying it wasn't bannable. If Guild A in the wrong for doing something that they were told was okay to do?

All that is being sought here is confirmation on what was told to them. An answer in PMs would help, but something, even remotely vague, would benefit the community. Something as simple as saying: "The Stormreaver is working properly."

There are three possible scenarios I can think of to explain this:

1) The ingame GM did not advise Vhlad to seek an answer either via PMs or Forum post. Vhlad possibly misinterpreted what the GM said.

2) The in game GM which advised Vhlad to seek an answer either via PMs or Forum post mistakenly gave instructions which are counter to Turbine policy. (due to numerous reasons: change in policy, miscommunication between departments, etc.) Thus, there may indeed be a policy that such issues are not discussed via PMs or Forum post. Assuming this is the case Vhlad should directly contact costumer service via phone or links previously posted. I would hope that if this is what has happened Vhlad could not only get the answer to his questions, but the ingame support staff could be informed of the proper response to give customers in similar future situations.

Both of these first two could be simple mistakes made by either party. Thus, a reasoable solution can be obtained and this will hopefully avoid future problems of the like. I truly hope that is all that has occured. However, if this is not the case, the only other explanation I can come up with is.

3) Extremely poor customer service. This should be unacceptable to all players.

[Reversion]

Up until the last day or two (I wasn't checking every day), another thread was left up that was much more detailed then Drith's post. Vhlad already pointed that out above in this post and gave the following reasons:

Which has been up for over a month. IMO Dryth's was deleted because it was, 1) a repeat issue and 2) not development related. Unless someone posted something new in there that I missed, the month old thread contains everything that was discussed (and more).

Now, though, that post has been deleted. *shrug* I am not saying one way or another on the issue, but that I think some clarification would benefit the community. I know of one guild being banned, but their actions were completely different than the given circumstances.

We all have made mistakes. The threads about this topic could have become deleted, just like the thread's about the extended downtime for server maintenance. Whether or not it is the case, simply deleteing the thread doesn't seem to be solving this issue.

[Vhlad]

So, saying some actions MAY or some actions CAN get you banned seem to be saying the same thing.

But what your point is, I can't fully understand.

You pointed out MAY and made a big deal about it. I used the word CAN. I then responeded to your "MAY" rant by defining the word CAN for you. Since you finally agree they say the same thing, why the (have a nice day) did you emphasize the word MAY?

But that's not what was being talked about in the thread that got deleted. Like I said, have to be vague because talking about details will get the thread deleted.

And this thread is about not getting answers (privately or otherwise) to very legitimate questions.

FYI, any discourse between a GM/player should not be made public on these forums. I didn't mention it. Sorry.