Customer Service Clarification Requested: What Constitutes an Exploit?

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by gotwar, Jan 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Niskin Clockwork Arguer

    Seriously exploiters, you're just embarrassing yourselves at this point. "How was I supposed to know that avoiding a lockout but still getting the loot wasn't intended?" Take one brain cell, rub it up against another brain cell, and voila, you can determine that this wasn't intended. If you don't have the requisite two brain cells to perform this function, then maybe you should find a less challenging hobby...
  2. Axxius Augur

    You are talking about Heroic Adventures. I recall asking about this in CotF Beta (where they were first introduced). My exact point was about the rares/collectables spawning a number of steps before the mission is completed and loot is awarded.

    I don't remember which designer it was who replied (iirc Ellyra or Augur), but it was one of those who actually implemented HA's in CotF. They said it was perfectly fine to get a new HA, and that the number of steps to spawn the rares/collectables was designed with farming in mind. Not only they were fine with it, they actually added a blue emote in the middle of the screen to notify the players when those things spawned.
  3. Jaerlyn Augur

    I'd prefer if they did both to them.
  4. CatsPaws No response to your post cause your on ignore

    I vote we lift the suspension so the boards can get back to real issues, after all you can hear all these same stories from the inmates at the local jail too.
  5. Chelsith New Member


    A permanent ban would have the same effect.
  6. Chelsith New Member



    A lot of things were left in the game intentionally. Very few allow you to bypass loot timers. Those that do exist are taken out pretty quickly after discovery.

    So next time you swim just across the waterline so you can see everything underwater, rest assured that, while this wasn't an intentional part of the water physics and chemistry, you are allowed to do it. Next time you run slightly too fast into a wall and see through to the other side, rest assured that, while this wasn't an intentional attempt at X-ray vision, they're not going to suspend you. But next time you find a way to trigger vast amounts of loot by bypassing a timer, you'll be suspended.
    Corwyhn Lionheart and Niskin like this.
  7. Chelsith New Member

    Psycho.
    Oakenblade likes this.
  8. Intenso Augur

    That didn't could for cotf tho? Getting raid chase item from group names? :p
  9. cailien New Member



    this cant be reposted enough, the amount of money I've spent with day break and they suspend me for that's been known and ignored for years and they have accepted absolutely ZERO responsibility for that.
  10. Nennius Curmudgeon

    Buddha: "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

    You got caught. Use the time off to explore the parts of life you will now the time to enjoy.
  11. Jumbur Improved Familiar


    I read this as, "skipping the wait" being the offence that should be punished.

    But if you encounter a bug(and don't report it, as you are sure it is an well known bug), that results in a failure to give a lockout-timer, and didn't "skip the wait" but instead allowed 6 hours to pass before you run the mission again, because you respected the rules. Is that also an exploit?

    Or you just didn't noticed the bug that failed to give a lockout timer, and just waited 6 hours anyway because you assumed you got a lockout. Is that an exploit?

    Both examples violates the "Performing an action that allows you to bypass a lockout timer is an exploit." but it hardly seems fair...and I know some people was suspended for it...

    I admit, I rarely pay attention to when I get a lockout timer, I just assume I get one, and wait with requesting the mission again. I could easily have been suspended in that case, and it was just plain luck I did not encounter such a bug(not everyone was that lucky).


    I agree with "skipping the wait" resulting in a suspension though.
  12. Millianna Augur

    To be honest, your post has one major flaw. The issue was known prior to launch and even corrected in one aspect of the game. Someone at DBG made a bad business decision (they could have fixed issue prior to launch and choose not to). If you keep excusing things like this, we’ll never see a functional expansion (there’s absolutely no incentive to do so).
    Corwyhn Lionheart likes this.
  13. Chelsith New Member


    Lol this has literally never happened
  14. valiantSeven Elder

    Once again we get a round-about answer and once again it's nothing but trolls and keyboard warriors keeping their heads lodged firmly up their rears.

    I'm not sure what people aren't getting... No one's expecting to be rewarded nor are they playing stupid about dropping the mission and circumventing the lockout. It's the fact that they think it's perfectly okay to let this slide for 5 years and then all of a sudden decide one day that they're going to suspend everyone that has been doing it.

    That. That is the problem. It's them not having any bit of communication, coordination, or a backbone to their policies. They're arbitrarily decided upon to fit whatever happens to be the "thing" that's going on. They've proven they're not going to care at all about what, where, why, or how, and instead they're going to run their ban scripts and completely ignore everything else from that point forward.

    Based on their response, what part of "Performing an action that allows you to bypass a lockout timer is an exploit" and "Skipping this wait allowed players to repeatedly collect loot, giving them an unintentional advantage" makes you absolutely confident beyond all shadow of a doubt that they wouldn't start handing out suspensions for dropping and "exploiting" the lockout timers in order to get a certain name or collection to pop? You're still advancing your character through checkmarks on achievements that would grant you loot and other unique items, so what's the difference if you get it through collections or hunters versus loot off of a chest?

    Let's say they do randomly decide that dropping the task for hunters and collections is unintended next week, and an even larger number of people are suspended than there are right now. When and if that time comes, your "WELL [THESE TWO DEVELOPERS THAT HAVEN'T WORKED ON THE GAME IN YEARS] SAID IT WAS FINE!" would hold exactly the same weight as the argument of "YOU COULD DO IT FOR YEARS!," and there wouldn't be a thing you could do or say about it. Just thank you for playing, and feel free to reacquire your EverQuest experience when your suspension(s) is up!

    I know folks are probably rolling their eyes that it wouldn't happen and "Oh if you got suspended you definitely exploited... :rolleyes:", but it doesn't confuse anyone else that they chose to take down just 1 of the 4 NPCs that you could continually do this exploit with and chose to cherry pick a single mission? That kind of arbitrary logic that they can apply to fix whatever terrible design, testing, and implementation is what winds everyone up in the position(s) they never thought they'd be in.

    It's mindboggling to me that we tear Daybreak apart for how terrible their communication and logic is when it comes to class nerfs, buffs, spells, AAs, etc., but when it comes to stuff like this we'd rather get as narrow-minded as possible and jump at the first opportunity to $*** all over each other and turn it into some ridiculous "good players" versus "liars, cheaters, and hackers" battle.
    Gyurika Godofwar, Tsavo and cailien like this.
  15. Slippry Augur

    [spoilers] We're never getting a functional expansion. And nothing we do will change that. [/spoilers]
  16. gnomeboss Augur

    [IMG]
  17. cailien New Member



    LoL piss off troll, you're very brave behind your keyboard
  18. Zhaunil_AB Augur

    Misconception / not understanding the issue nor the "fix" or at least not detailed enough of a statement.
  19. Zhaunil_AB Augur

    Is the use of "law" here meant to mean "rule"?
    Because speaking of "law" (i.e. involving an actual court ruling) in this context is highly questionable, as the whole validity/binding nature of the EULA can be questioned.
    It's not as if this were a truly binding contract - it's merely a "hindrance"/distraction aimed at keeping people from actually trying to open a case.
    Especially in the US, "law" and "right" are only a matter of money and finding the right point for the lever to get what you - and not the company - "want".
    And "money" is where the company tends to have the advantage, not actual law-relevant substance.
  20. Zhaunil_AB Augur

    ROFL.
    Mentioning "law" and "moral" in the same sentence, really?
    That is ridiculous!
    Law IS immoral by nature.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.