Customer Service Clarification Requested: What Constitutes an Exploit?

So where is the list missons on which this mechanic (ie.. dropping task, then looting) is ok to do, and the list of missions on which because of whatever reason it becomes an unfair advantage?

Rule of thump: Can you get the chest loot without lockout? Yes? -> Don't do it

Roxxlyy's post says 'bypassing the lockout multiple times'. You claim that you know the people who got suspended for doing it only once. Obviously, somebody is wrong here. Either DBG suspended some people in error - and those people should contact CS and get that fixed. Or there are no errors, and those people just lied to you.

It's very easy to find the truth, if you care about it. If those people you know are too upset to even bother contacting CS, feel too insulted by the injustice, already over it, etc... then you know what really happened there.

Thats an issue in itself because the suspension would be over by the time the relevant people seen their petition and corrected it...

1) I think people who repeated continously the mission and bypass the lockout timers have got suspended.
2) I think some people got suspended by task removing before chest, due to wanting to goto the next mission quicker, not realising they had no lockout, even if they did the mission once per day.... or whatever.
3) I think some people got suspended by 2) and doing it again in a smaller time than the intended lockout.

If someone from DBG can give the criteria where there suspended people then we can see what was happening to certain people.

If they suspended for 2 or 3. come on DBG thats not good enough how is it an exploitation of the mission lockouts if they dont redo it until the next day.

It completely baffles me that these forums will BLOW. UP. over the numerous careless bugs, silly oversights, and baseless nerfs, but then the moment something like this happens, the forums are filled with nothing but justice trolls and keyboard warriors that get hard over the fact they can take a great big steaming dump all over the people that are affected while they sit atop of some moral high ground that they like to think they've created for themselves.

The same people that are running their keyboards all over these multiple forum threads and adding in their condescending series of emojis are the same ones that would be losing their minds when it came to something that affected them. It just further reinforces something I said long ago: "...then the shoe is on the other foot and all of a sudden they care, because typical procedure around here is to think you know everything about everything else so it's never "really that bad" until it happens to [you]."

The fact of the matter is, this is something that has been reported for years. Does it make it right that people can drop the mission, gear themselves to the teeth with all of the items that chest provides, and then get it again instantly without a lockout timer? No, it does not. That's not the point here, though.

The point is that people are trying to say "oh, well they improved their character while avoiding lockouts so they deserve the ban!" If any single person on this forum says they never (ever) dropped an HA, mission, or similar in order to get a named that didn't spawn or a collection piece that didn't pop, they're lying. There's absolutely no difference between improving your character with dropped gear and VP keys versus improving your character with achievement checkmarks that lead to AA points and other unique items that you wouldn't get otherwise.

It boils down to the fact that you could do this for just about five years. They were told you could, and they knew you could. The people that abused this to no end should've at least felt a slight bit dirty over what they were doing, but the fact that nothing ever changed and nothing was ever said about it for nearly half of a damn decade should tell you that it wasn't much of a priority to them and they didn't care about it happening even though they knew it was happening.

Then this week rolls along, and the fact that they can arbitrarily decide one day that they're going to make something (anything...) a suspendable offense just to appease the whiny f****** that like to hear themselves talk on these forums should worry a lot of people. Instead of coming together over something like this, we're all at each others throats trying to spit on the person to our right and left.

We're sitting here talking like "oh they'll never clarify this stuff" or "it's common sense!" No, it really isn't when you think about it. The same exact "exploit" where you could avoid the lockout timers in Overthere not only existed with Veeshan's Peak, Skyfire, and Gorowyn missions, but they existed and were LEFT IN THE GAME THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS! Where's the sense and logic in that? It's only an exploit if the mission takes less than 5 minutes to complete? Yep, that sounds like pretty sound logic and common sense to me. Yet not a single soul was touched or disciplined over chaining either of those other missions, and some folks still chose to do it while the NPC was on her vacation.

If this company can't have any kind of spine nor enough of a backbone to say "This is X, it's fine," and "This is Y, it's not fine," instead of deciding on a whim based on their negligence when the content is developed, then that's something we need to come together and force an answer to or stop feeding the ability to make these kinds of terrible decisions through our wallets.

Oh. I'll readily admit that's possible, though unlikely in at least one case. I'm more concerned over what that quote and its stated ruling means for the situations listed in the OP; that running instances multiple times is now considered an exploit whether you receive loot as a reward or not.

I never thought placing rare NPC's in an instance with a lockout was a fantastic design decision, but the seemingly intentional ability to bypass the lockout in order to run them over and over again until one spawns made it less painful that it could have been. The same goes for certain conquests/collectibles on long-lockout missions.

I guess I'm just glad I'm done with hunter achievements and don't care about collectibles, but clarification is still needed.

I think that Gotwar has some valid questions in light of the recent ban bat that got swinging. DBG, I think, needs to come out and clarify what it considers as exploits and what it does not, clearly and concisely. I think in this instance, they should have issued a warning to all players it found what it considered exploiting a mechanic that has been in game for years, then went on to fix it as soon as possible.

However, there is a flip side to the coin as well. Say you go to an ATM, and you want to withdraw $20, but when you do, it actually gives you $40. The first time, you say, "Hey, well, that's got to be a mistake!" But, you go on your merry way. You come back another day, and make another transaction for $20, but get $40. Well, its still a mistake, but now you figure, what they heck, I'll just keep coming back here and pulling out $40 for $20. So, you keep doing so. In fact, you try some other transactions, but only find that it works with the $20 transaction. So, you go in and make numerous $20 transactions at a time, to double your money as quickly as possible.

Then, one day, you wake up and find that your card has been cancelled, and your account is overdrawn as it was adjusted for all those extra $20s you pulled out. You go to the bank, pretty mad about it, because how dare they make you pay for their mistake. It wasn't your fault the machine was broken.

And you would be right. It isn't your fault the machine was broken. However, it is your fault for exploiting that broken machine for your own gain, knowing it was broken. The first transaction is always forgivable. But if you keep doing it and try to feign ignorance, then act surprised when you reap the consequences, then that really is on you.

Now, what makes this situation difficult is that this ATM (mechanic in game) has been broken for years, to where it actually became part of normal game play. And that is DBGs fault for letting it happen. That is why I don't agree with their heavy-handiness of outright banning people for any length of time for this. Again, they should have issued warnings first, to give a heads up that this was an issue that was going to be fixed soon, and any further exploitation needs to stop until such time. Then, if someone would have continued to do it, banning would be justified. This slew of bannings just makes it seem arbitrary at this point, which is why I think Gotwar has some valid points. DBG needs to clarify, beyond the vague "thou shall not exploit" in the EULA.

Your in their world now and they can call the shots the way they want. In the future there are going to be new marketplace offerings: "Therapy pet in a box" (your choice of shivering stinky looking chihuahua's dressed up in sparkly sweaters) and "Quiet Rooms" to add to your houses.

The Fell Foliage mission is intended to be completed by a player once every six hours, complete with chest loot rewards.

If said player found a bug/loophole/way/means of repeating the Fell Foliage mission every 5-10 minutes while still obtaining the chest rewards every time, then said player is exploiting the mission. It does not matter who screwed up the bug/loophole. It does not matter how the bug/loophole is obtained and executed. Said player knows the mission is once every six hours, and chose to run it every 5-10 minutes which clearly is in violation of the intent.

Sometimes I weep for current society and millenials. Feels like they are more concerned about proving themselves right through gray areas than they are accepting and admitting guilt...

Except we then adjust that scenario for Daybreak and the situation at hand, and you have something like the following:

Say you go to an ATM, and you want to withdraw $20, but when you do, it actually gives you $40. The first time, you say, "Hey, well, that's got to be a mistake! I'm going to tell someone about this!" The teller acknowledges you. They don't say it's intended, but they definitely know about it and know that people are taking advantage of it. You come back another day, and make another transaction for $20, but still get $40. You inform the teller yet again and they do nothing. They let you take out an extra $20 for the next five years instead of fixing their terrible "ATM machine" on the spot if they actually didn't want you to be able to get an extra $20 for free. One day they decide it's not going to fly anymore, and then they add in harsh, over-the-top punishments for everyone that used that ATM.

"It's been happening forever so it should be allowed to continue happening." No, that's not what's being said here. I'm perfectly fine and totally on Daybreak's side when they say enough is enough and this is now going to change. They have every right to make that call and make the proper adjustments in their development and code and whatever else that no longer make what was happening possible.

It's at that point, however, that you actually have a spine and say "Hey, we messed up and this was never intended. Its gone on for years and we'd be rolling people back to 2013 if we actually wanted to remove the benefits they've received over the years, so, just know that we messed up, we're sorry, it's not intended for it to happen like this, and anyone that figures out a way to make it keep happening is definitely going to suspended or worse." That's absolutely nothing like what happened here.

I honestly do not think they are being silly.

The fact is that what all of these people did (not me, again I am not high enough level to even do it on my main) was use a game mechanic that has been in the game for many years, and has never (to my knowledge) been defined as an exploit by SoE nor DBG.

Would I have done it if I had been level to do so and known about it? Probably not, but only because I wouldn't have even thought about dropping the mission before opening the chest. It's just not something that would have crossed my mind.

I think the MOST IMPORTANT fact here is that this is a game mechanic that COULD have been avoided by the game designer that implemented it by setting the mission to activate the lock out trigger at the time that the reward spawns (aka the chest or what ever that spawns).

The fact that the person who implemented this mission chose to set the lock out trigger on the opening of the chest is 100% the fault of that person.

The blame is being shifted to the player, but this was the fault of the employee that put it in place.

Let me give an example that might make this more understandable.

Lets say you have a mission where you kill the king's two guards and then you kill the king. After you kill the king, a chest spawns. The chest spawning is placed on the event of the king being killed. That's how the game designer "intended" the encounter to be played.

Now let's say that by chance, your group kills the king first instead of killing the guards first. The chest spawns when the king dies, but the guards reset and stop fighting you. Then a few minutes later, the king respawns by the guards. Your group is like, "hey the name is back up. Awesome! Let's kill him!" You kill the them and the chest spawns when the king dies.

Now that was clearly not the way the game designer intended the encounter to happen, BUT nobody ever tells the player base that it is an exploit to kill the king first. This goes on for many years, and then one day, *BAM*! Everybody that kills the king first gets suspended for exploiting.

In this scenario, the fault was NOT the players. The fault was 1) the game designer that implemented the encounter should have made sure the trigger for the chest spawning was that both guards and the king were dead, 2) the guards should not have reset after the king died if they were still alive, and 3) the company should have at the VERY LEAST let it be known to the player base that killing the king first is considered to be an exploit, they are working on a fix, and that anybody caught using that exploit will be punished.

There are many, many things in Everquest (as well as other MMORPGs) that are used NOT AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, but are accepted as common game play after the players discover it. Kiting, Fear Kiting, and Root Rotting are a few of those things. Its these unintended game play discoveries that make MMORPGs special.

When a company starts blaming and punishing their customer base rather than accepting their mistakes and fixing them, something has to change. That's not right. It's simply not right.

And, again. I didn't use the "exploit". My main isn't even high enough level to do that content. I simply see this for what it is which is wrong.

I already addressed that in my post further on:

I personally don't even think money is a great example. Since there's nothing 'lost' by anyone and there's no transaction of value in a video game context. Like getting an extra achievement or a couple spells actually has value. It's more like if you're paying Comcast for TV and they accidentally give you HBO for free. So you watch it every day. Then after a month they notice and decide to ''punish' you by by suspending your entire service for three weeks. And without even refunding your money for the time you have no service and are still paid up. I doubt anyone would put up with that.

It has value to a lot of people in game. Things in game have value, hence selling them for Krono and such. So, yes, there is value to these items in game.

As for your analogy, do you notice you get HBO for free, call customer service, let them know, and make sure you aren't getting billed for it, then don't watch it?
Or did you call customer service, but still decide to watch it while it was free?
Or do you notice you get it for free, don't call customer service, and watch it anyway because, hey, you are getting it for free, right?
Or did your neighbor come to you and say, "Hey, man, I am getting HBO for free, and the company hasn't done anything about it yet." So, you go and check, and sure enough, you have it as well. Do you start watching it because, hey, its free, and if your neighbor is doing it, it must be OK?

Out of the above scenarios, which one is the right one?

The one thing you are leaving out of your analogy is "previous habits of the company involved".

When it comes to cable companies and free HBO, there have been many times in the past where they have given HBO for free as a promotion to try to sale that service to their customers. That sets a precedent for what their customers can expect. Therefore, if you noticed that you was getting HBO for free, you would NOT call the cable company to tell them you are getting it free. You would just EXPECT that you are getting it free as a promotion the cable company is putting on.

Now apply that to the so-called exploit in Everquest. This behavior has been in the game for many years. Nobody has gotten in trouble for using it for many years. SoE/DBG has never said it is an exploit. Therefore, the company has set an expectation that it is acceptable game play. SoE/DBG set the expectation, and the player base played the game with THAT EXPECTATION.

There is no reason for anybody to assume that anything is NOT ACCEPTABLE if they are never given any information indicating that it would be NOT ACCEPTABLE.

This is the same thing as writing the law after you convict people for the crime. It's immoral.

Any scenario is fine. I wouldn't complain to Comcast if they gave me extra channels. It doesn't cost them money. It's not more expensive to send one channel over the wire than another. It's just a database/software configuration option on their end.

If some kids want to sell in game items for cash or something that's their issue. That doesn't mean those items have any real value. It just means there's lots of dumb people playing the game.

Again, I have already addressed my stance on DBG's role in this. But the law was, technically, already written in the EULA about exploitation. Vague as it may be, it is still there. Vague as it may be, DBG can, and has, interpreted it the way they wanted to.

In regards to your promotion point, yes, that has happened. But DBG didn't run this as a promotion. And the analogy that the previous poster I was replying to did not present it as a situation of a promotion. On top of that, when a promotion is over, they usually cut it off, so you don't get it anymore. This is a matter of someone turning on HBO during a non-promotional period for everyone, and people using it without paying for it just because it is turned on. That is equally as unethical.

Now, again, as I have stated before...
DBG made a mistake here as well. They knew of the exploit in game and chose not to fix it. To outright ban people for something that has been in play for 3+ years, to me, is wrong. They should have issued a warning stating, "As of 12:00 AM PT 01/03/18, anyone caught doing XXX will be subject to a ban for X days. We will have this issued patched and resolved by 01/05/18."

But, we are all thinking human beings. Someone else brought up the analogy in another recently started thread that compared gamers to mice coming out for free cheese. I refuse this analogy, because we have the ability to rationalize, and to choose right from wrong, regardless of the actions that the company takes to correct its own mistake.

Actually, it is more expensive for them to do it. See, they have to pay things like royalties, electric bills, etc. And when you use something without paying for it, then you are making them pay for your service, not you. Just because you feel like sticking it to the man doesn't make it right.

As for dumb people playing the game, I hope you consider time an asset and value, because people put value on that as well for obtaining items, spells, achieves, and other things as well. They may not spend real $$ on something, but they do spend real time, which is equally of value, on getting these things.

Dear DBG,

Can we please get more clarification on what the definition of the word "is" ...is?

We're confused!!!!!!

Heh heh... while I don't think Daybreak is innocent in all of this no one did this and said "wow Daybreak must intend things to be done this way!". No one is that dumb.

And your analogy is flawed. Some people hook up to their neighbor's cable and get it for free. Cable companies know people do this. They make a decision based on the amount of lost business whether it is worth looking for these people. Some people got free cable for years and now the cable company decided it is worth cracking down on stolen cable. The people knew they were circumventing the normal mechanic of getting cable they just figured since their neighbors had been doing it for years they could get away with it. Its like gambling. People made a bet the exploit would continue to go unnoticed it didn't.

I just wish this had been dealt with before it became necessary to suspend people. Daybreak has made a decision that the suspensions are best to achieve their business goals/for the health of the game. Whether that is true or not I don't know.

I don't think they are doing this out of malice so make reasoned arguments with them but your cable argument is not one of them.