No answer...must be ok!

[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

[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.