| Scarlet | » #441444 Sunday February 7, 2010 at 21:17 | |
Death Knight Scrub |
quote: There are plenty of top guilds that don't have anyone who gets paid for playing the game. And even if one of them does...does it really matter? I doubt they are good because they are getting paid. They are getting paid because they are already good.;) I'm not saying they are good because they get paid Tora. I just dislike when people infer they know something they can't possibly know. I mean a sponsorship these days would only matter if I was servertransferring to do more raids every week. It's not hard to keep as many potions/elixirs/food as you need for weekly raids. --
"Death is an acceptable form of CC" |
|
| Mithis | » #441459 Sunday February 7, 2010 at 23:25 | |
Member |
quote: Originally posted by Dulin: What I'm saying is: The only way you can 'know' something is an exploit is if Blizzard has said it's an exploit. Wrong. Ideally that might be how it's supposed to work, but do you remember the WSG terrain exploits? Do you honestly think the people who were climbing above the flag arch in WSG where they couldn't be targeted until they were good and ready to hop down for a cap didn't fucking know it was an exploit? Even though it wasn't officially recognized by Blizzard until weeks later, and wasn't fixed until weeks after that? I don't think so. They new damn well it was an exploit, and did it anyway. I don't believe for a second that a guild of "professional" players didn't know what they were doing wasn't an exploit, and it's no surprise that others seem to agree and are holding them to a higher standard. And by your logic, any number of exploits that are obviously providing an unintended and unfair advantage to someone are "ok" until officially acknowledged by the game company? Any honest player with a modicum of common sense would know better. Anything else is just an excuse to justify using it. --
 |
|
| Toragan | » #441468 Monday February 8, 2010 at 02:14 | |
|
The not so serious paladin |
Dulin is acutally right for the most part. There's alot of things that skirt the line which Bliz doesn't label as exploits. Most of them involve minimizing the impact of certain fight mechanics. Standing under the ledge on the Prince fight in KZ for example or back when they had that branch in the Archimone fight (or however his name is spelled =P). In most of those cases they acutally have to declare it an exploit before they would punish anyone for it. Sometimes if they want it removed they just remove it themselves in a patch. However Bliz has made a history of punishing people for obvious exploits. Most of the examples I've seen in those cases were common sense stuff. Using a GM item to kill bosses, warping to C'thun to avoid the rest of the instance, or remember when Death Dealers used the DI exploit to avoid the first phase of Razor? Stuff like that. I think what most people who have firm opinions one way or another on this forget is that we only have one side of this story and that's all we will ever have. Bliz does not publicly discuss disciplinary actions so that just leaves us with Ensidia's accounts which you can't expect to be unbasis. The only thing I know is Bliz saw something in their attempt and how they were killing the boss that led them to believe they were deliberately exploiting the bug. What that was we'll likely never know therefore it'd be hard for me to decide if it was fair or not. That's why I really don't have a firm opinion on the matter. --
 |
|
| sefoniel | » #441469 Monday February 8, 2010 at 03:40 | |
Arch Druid (at least according to BA!) |
A lot of people got banned for the flame leviathan exploit, and I don't think they ever officially "announced" it as a bannable exploit. Same with the infinite direbrew summons exploit. If you're doing something like that, well, you probably know in advance that maybe you should be doing it differently. --
 |
|
| Dulin | » #441557 Monday February 8, 2010 at 12:47 | |
Marksman 4 Life: We're Takin' It BACK! |
quote: Originally posted by Mithis: And by your logic, any number of exploits that are obviously providing an unintended and unfair advantage to someone are "ok" until officially acknowledged by the game company? Any honest player with a modicum of common sense would know better. Anything else is just an excuse to justify using it. No, by my logic, Blizzard has stated, going back into Vanilla, that raid boss tactics are considered exploits only once Blizzard has labeled them as exploits, and given that Blizzard had not labeled this an exploit, to take punitive action against the guild/raiders for using an exploit is not only wrong, it is against Blizzard's stated policies, making it dishonest as well. This is a significant fuckup in how Blizzard reacted to this instance of paying customers doing their QA for them on a live service. My logic made no value judgements about the morality or ethics of the raid group, neither 'it's ok' or 'they're cocks', it addressed only Blizzard's handling of the incident. --
 “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Dulin | » #441558 Monday February 8, 2010 at 12:52 | |
|
Marksman 4 Life: We're Takin' It BACK! |
quote: Originally posted by Toragan: The only thing I know is Bliz saw something in their attempt and how they were killing the boss that led them to believe they were deliberately exploiting the bug. Really? I haven't seen even that much information from Blizzard. For all I know, this was someone's knee-jerk reacton to one of the devs saying 'Crap, that shouldn't work'. And, as the ones who wrote and released the code for every single piece of what went on, from the user client to the terrain mechanics to the bomb mechanics to the width of the 'edge' section to the entirety of the encounter itself, the responsibility for this bug occurring is Blizzard's. The responsibility for this bug being sufficient to completely trivialize significant mechanics of the fight is Blizzard's. And the responsibility for their response to someone finding a massive hole in their code is also Blizzard's. --
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Dulin | » #441559 Monday February 8, 2010 at 12:54 | |
|
Marksman 4 Life: We're Takin' It BACK! |
quote: Originally posted by sefoniel: A lot of people got banned for the flame leviathan exploit, and I don't think they ever officially "announced" it as a bannable exploit. Same with the infinite direbrew summons exploit. And if they didn't actually post someplace that it was an exploit, then I'd say that was wrong, too. Have they? Dunno. Until I see that they have, they were wrong. (edited for clarity) --
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Adele | » #441574 Monday February 8, 2010 at 13:40 | |
Member |
quote: Originally posted by Dulin: No, by my logic, Blizzard has stated, going back into Vanilla, that raid boss tactics are considered exploits only once Blizzard has labeled them as exploits, and given that Blizzard had not labeled this an exploit, to take punitive action against the guild/raiders for using an exploit is not only wrong, it is against Blizzard's stated policies, making it dishonest as well. Where? I've never heard that and that would be stupid on their part to have it as policy because of exactly what you stated. And fyi this is Blizzard's currently posted policy: quote: Bug Exploitation We have a top notch Quality Assurance team who tirelessly stamp out bugs and design inconsistencies within World of Warcraft. However, a handful of trained professionals can never isolate and resolve each and every bug in such a deep and complex game accessed simultaneously by thousands of players. You may come across the occasional bug during your adventures. Some bugs are minor and do not affect gameplay, but sometimes these bugs can be used to provide an unfair advantage to certain players or affect the service itself. Factors included in determining the appropriate penalty: * Whether or not the exploit is performed intentionally, maliciously, and/or repeatedly * Whether or not the exploit damages another character, their gameplay, the service itself and/or its economy * Whether or not an attempt has been made to conceal the exploit's use If a player is found to have abused/distributed an exploit, he/she may: * Be given a verbal warning if exploitation is unintentional and no attempt has been made to hide its occurrence * Be temporarily suspended from the game * In extreme cases the account will be closed outright Bug exploitation that we consider extreme includes, but is not limited to: * Any exploit that has a severe negative impact on a realm's economy * Causing disruption in service or intentionally crashing a realm/server While these repercussions may seem harsh, we feel very strongly that this type of abuse has no place within Azeroth due to its negative effect on other players or the service itself. They do mention in the next section, Abuse of Game Mechanics, the difference between exploiting bugs and mechanics: quote: The distinction between exploiting bugs and abusing game mechanics is a fine one. While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake, the abuse of game mechanics is the act of taking advantage of the limitations of the World of Warcraft game systems. Since the line between the sanctioned use and the abuse of game mechanics is sometimes unclear, we prefer to educate players before taking any action against the account being used. Oh, and from the Terms of Use, which we all agreed to and re-agree to every single patch: quote: C. Rules Related to Gameplay: ... certain acts go beyond what is "fair" and are considered serious violations of these Terms of Use. Those acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (i) Using or exploiting errors in design, features which have not been documented, and/or "program bugs" to gain access that is otherwise not available, or to obtain a competitive advantage over other players; In this case, Ensidia exploited an undocumented programming mistake maliciously to gain a competitive advantage over other players and were punished for it according to the rules. End of story. --
 |
|
| Dulin | » #441581 Monday February 8, 2010 at 13:59 | |
|
Marksman 4 Life: We're Takin' It BACK! |
quote: Originally posted by Adele: Where? I've never heard that and that would be stupid on their part to have it as policy because of exactly what you stated. The first time I encountered it was during the early clears of BWL, when one of the high-end raid guilds exploited a wall mechanic, and Blizzard came out and said that it wasn't considered an exploit... yet. A week later, they declared it an exploit and gave the policy decision I've mentioned. Unfortunately, those posts all went ka-boom when they re-did their fora a few years back. Aaah. Terribly handy. Be more handy if it was at the wow site, too. ;) Interesting bit, though... quote: If a player is found to have abused/distributed an exploit, he/she may: * Be given a verbal warning if exploitation is unintentional and no attempt has been made to hide its occurrence I don't think posting their version of events qualifies as attempting to hide its occurence, do you? Because a kill that others will doubtless have within 8 days certainly doesn't threaten server economy or balance. quote: They do mention in the next section, Abuse of Game Mechanics, the difference between exploiting bugs and mechanics: quote: The distinction between exploiting bugs and abusing game mechanics is a fine one. While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake, the abuse of game mechanics is the act of taking advantage of the limitations of the World of Warcraft game systems. Since the line between the sanctioned use and the abuse of game mechanics is sometimes unclear, we prefer to educate players before taking any action against the account being used. Except, apparently, when they don't. quote: Oh, and from the Terms of Use, which we all agreed to and re-agree to every single patch: quote: C. Rules Related to Gameplay: ... certain acts go beyond what is "fair" and are considered serious violations of these Terms of Use. Those acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (i) Using or exploiting errors in design, features which have not been documented, and/or "program bugs" to gain access that is otherwise not available, or to obtain a competitive advantage over other players; Except they weren't gaining access to anything not otherwise available, or obtaining a competitive advantage against other players within the context of WoW. PvE != PvP, and Arthas is, last time I checked, instanced. Them killing him doesn't prevent others from doing so. It's not like going after Kazzak or Azuregos. quote: In this case, Ensidia exploited an undocumented programming mistake maliciously to gain a competitive advantage over other players and were punished for it according to the rules. End of story. And I don't see where there was any malice involved. At any point, do you really think someone said 'MUAHAHAH! GHOSTCRAWLER, YOU WHORE! I THROW THIS SARONITE BOMB AT ARTHAS, AND I BLOW UP YOUR JOB!!!'? Really, who would they be acting maliciously toward? Malice has to have an object, or it's not malice. --
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Adele | » #441590 Monday February 8, 2010 at 14:30 | |
|
Member |
quote: Originally posted by Dulin: Aaah. Terribly handy. Be more handy if it was at the wow site, too. ;) Uh, it is? http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml > Support on the left side > Game Policies > Number 11. quote: Originally posted by Dulin: Interesting bit, though... quote: If a player is found to have abused/distributed an exploit, he/she may: * Be given a verbal warning if exploitation is unintentional and no attempt has been made to hide its occurrence I don't think posting their version of events qualifies as attempting to hide its occurence, do you? Because a kill that others will doubtless have within 8 days certainly doesn't threaten server economy or balance. They didn't acknowledge that they intentionally and repeatedly used a bug until after they were suspended. They acknowledged that they had a bug occur when the hotfix was done, but that was it. However, this is where we can only speculate, Blizzard has a lot more information that we do. I personally suspect that someone mentioned in-game that they knew they were bugging it. quote: Originally posted by Dulin: quote: They do mention in the next section, Abuse of Game Mechanics, the difference between exploiting bugs and mechanics: quote: The distinction between exploiting bugs and abusing game mechanics is a fine one. While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake, the abuse of game mechanics is the act of taking advantage of the limitations of the World of Warcraft game systems. Since the line between the sanctioned use and the abuse of game mechanics is sometimes unclear, we prefer to educate players before taking any action against the account being used. Except, apparently, when they don't. ? "While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake" That the bombs healed the floor was a programming mistake and Ensidia exploited it. quote: Originally posted by Dulin: quote: Oh, and from the Terms of Use, which we all agreed to and re-agree to every single patch: quote: C. Rules Related to Gameplay: ... certain acts go beyond what is "fair" and are considered serious violations of these Terms of Use. Those acts include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (i) Using or exploiting errors in design, features which have not been documented, and/or "program bugs" to gain access that is otherwise not available, or to obtain a competitive advantage over other players; Except they weren't gaining access to anything not otherwise available, or obtaining a competitive advantage against other players within the context of WoW. PvE != PvP, and Arthas is, last time I checked, instanced. Them killing him doesn't prevent others from doing so. It's not like going after Kazzak or Azuregos. They did gain a competitive advantage, in the world-first game. Sorry, I was getting in-game confused with out of game for that. --
|
|
| Dulin | » #441604 Monday February 8, 2010 at 15:04 | |
|
Marksman 4 Life: We're Takin' It BACK! |
quote: Originally posted by Adele: Uh, it is? http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/index.xml > Support on the left side > Game Policies > Number 11. Bah! Surely they couldn't expect us to look for things like that under easy to find heading that make sense! That'd be crazy! quote: They didn't acknowledge that they intentionally and repeatedly used a bug until after they were suspended. They acknowledged that they had a bug occur when the hotfix was done, but that was it. However, this is where we can only speculate, Blizzard has a lot more information that we do. I personally suspect that someone mentioned in-game that they knew they were bugging it. Not coming out and saying their kill was bugged all spontaneous-like isn't the same as hiding it, though. quote: ? "While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake" That the bombs healed the floor was a programming mistake and Ensidia exploited it. I was actually talking about the 'we prefer to educate, not punish'. quote: They did gain a competitive advantage, in the world-first game. Sorry, I was getting in-game confused with out of game for that. No worries, but, it's like if I decide to brag about getting all of the totally pointless cosmetic pets - then they release a new one for Blizzcon. Does that mean Blizzcon tickets are now a competitive advantage, if me and another guy are trying to one-up someone? There really does need to be a limit on what's 'competitive' - if it's not in-game PvP, then it shouldn't count. If it's something in-game that Blizz wants people to be trying to beat one another on... well, that should be PvP, no? --
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson |
|
| KeeRissa | » #441612 Monday February 8, 2010 at 15:35 | |
You need it, I do it. |
quote: Originally posted by Dulin: quote: They did gain a competitive advantage, in the world-first game. Sorry, I was getting in-game confused with out of game for that. No worries, but, it's like if I decide to brag about getting all of the totally pointless cosmetic pets - then they release a new one for Blizzcon. Does that mean Blizzcon tickets are now a competitive advantage, if me and another guy are trying to one-up someone? There really does need to be a limit on what's 'competitive' - if it's not in-game PvP, then it shouldn't count. If it's something in-game that Blizz wants people to be trying to beat one another on... well, that should be PvP, no? I just had to point out that a pet achievement is a little different from the world first kill of a major raid boss. Comparing it to PvP is also a strange way to go considering there are issues over arena teams, exploits and some of us complain bitterly all of the time over how it sucks that they balance the PvE game around something someone figured out how to use to their advantage in PvP. Ensidia screwed up and as a world-first guild, yeah, I admit I hold them to a higher standard than I'd hold Joe-average. However, if a Joe-average got a world first kill with an exploit, I'd say, "Uh, no, I don't think so." I am also a person who really hated the Archimonde exploit and had to grit my teeth every time someone bragged they'd killed him by using it so that's where I come from. |
|
| Bonlain | » #441616 Monday February 8, 2010 at 15:45 | |
The Grump |
quote: They did gain a competitive advantage, in the world-first game. Which Blizzard took care of when they stripped them of the title and achievement, which really should have been the end of it, if all that was involved was the bomb healing the platform and the guild using that for the kill. Now, if there was something deeper and darker involved, like the guild hacking Blizzards files to actually install the bug, then yeah, banning was a solution. Blizzard comes off as heavy-handed, at least in my view, for banning the entire guild. --
=====================================================     ----- 'This world may be another planet's hell.'{Aldous Huxley} ----- 'After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.'{Aldous Huxley} |
|
| Adele | » #441617 Monday February 8, 2010 at 15:45 | |
|
Member |
quote: Originally posted by Dulin: quote: They didn't acknowledge that they intentionally and repeatedly used a bug until after they were suspended. They acknowledged that they had a bug occur when the hotfix was done, but that was it. However, this is where we can only speculate, Blizzard has a lot more information that we do. I personally suspect that someone mentioned in-game that they knew they were bugging it. Not coming out and saying their kill was bugged all spontaneous-like isn't the same as hiding it, though. No it's not, however that's why we can't know for sure that that's why they were actioned or not. All we know "for sure" is that they were banned for exploiting the floor, which heck, Ensidia could have even changed the text about what they were banned for, not that I'm saying they did. quote: Originally posted by Dulin: quote: ? "While bug exploitation involves the abuse of what is essentially a programming mistake" That the bombs healed the floor was a programming mistake and Ensidia exploited it. I was actually talking about the 'we prefer to educate, not punish'. Ah, well for that I'd argue that they've already educated Ensidia since they are regular testers for Blizzard and they've "discovered" and used other bugs and on bosses before and reported them. --
|
|
| Dulin | » #441619 Monday February 8, 2010 at 15:46 | |
|
Marksman 4 Life: We're Takin' It BACK! |
quote: Originally posted by KeeRissa: I just had to point out that a pet achievement is a little different from the world first kill of a major raid boss. Comparing it to PvP is also a strange way to go considering there are issues over arena teams, exploits and some of us complain bitterly all of the time over how it sucks that they balance the PvE game around something someone figured out how to use to their advantage in PvP. I'm just saying that, by definition, players competing against other players is, you know, PvP. Player vs. Player. I can't see any way that Players competing vs other Players isn't Player vs Player. So, no, I'm not 'comparing it' to PvP, I'm saying flat out that if it's not part of the PvP game, Blizzard shouldn't be making it out to be part of it. Fish or cut bait, Blizz, can't eat your cake and have it, too (which is the *correct* form of the goddamn idiom). --
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson |
|