Roxxlyy, I think I found a flaw in Daybreak Logic regarding recent suspensions

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by narksar, Jan 10, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. narksar Lorekeeper

    As I have stated, I'm not entirely familiar with the full specifics of this exact exploit, my concern is communication by Daybreak and their process. My logic has not addressed the full specifics regarding this particular exploit and or how it was/is done, therefor my logic is not faulty as it has not addressed the extreme specifics. Though I would ask why you define it so explicitly as a "rule". I get you are saying that it is a set dynamic, but there are frequently modifications made to games to bypass existing dynamics.

    To reiterate what I've said in other posts, I'm not saying that anything the players did was "ok", I'm advocating a more explicit information process on the part of Daybreak. If Daybreak had mentioned this 4 years ago and explicitly said it was an exploit, then, yes, that would absolutely be support for the disciplinary action.
  2. Jumbur Augur

    I wouldn't complain if they improved their communication, and your suggestion would be a reasonable usage of the MOTD functionality.

    I still think it is fair for DBG to assume common sense from the player-base. Getting a chest with rk2 spells and key-pieces every 3 minutes, was obviously too good to be true.
    Elricvonclief and Newb Tank like this.
  3. Febb Augur


    Bad analogy.
  4. narksar Lorekeeper

    I've actually seen that happen before. Stupid as it may sound for the City to do that, but I've seen it.

    If you have a better one that accounts for Daybreak leaving the "exploit" in the code and not addressing it for years on end, I would be very open to hearing it. Most analogies I've read merely involve the "enforcement" part of Daybreak and not the "development" and or "communication/community relations" part.
  5. narksar Lorekeeper

    That does sound rather extreme, but if I was in a mission, clicked some buttons and saw the chest reappear, my first reaction would be something along the lines of "wtf? Is it back? Let me see..." Admittedly, after about 3-5 times I'd probably back off, thinking, there's something really weird and possibly not intentional going on. Or was this something people did for hours on end, as opposed to 2-3 or so times?
  6. Jumbur Augur

    Yes, thats what I heard.
  7. Thrillho Augur

    I'm having more fun with this absurdity than I am with the original intent of this (repeated) topic.

    There are no illusions that shrink you small enough to get within the crack of a wooden slot in a door - at least not any more than putting your finger in. Even still, if this generated enough force to actually break the door before it broke you, why wouldn't you just kick the damn thing down in the first place?

    What was the intent behind locking a door? To restrict passage to those who gain a key, or to those who can pick a lock. I'm certain the devs didn't consider expanding oneself inside of the door, spalling the barrier apart by freezing water inside of it, using an air or water elemental to just pass through the cracks, or even quantum tunneling.

    "Well, my character identifies as a mist elemental, so I can pass through whatever barriers there are in the game and you're not allowed to do anything to stop me."
    "Crap, he's got us there, Jim. Give this man his loot."
    Newb Tank likes this.
  8. smash Augur

    Why in World should they go out and say something that should be selfexplaining ? Do a shop have a big sign up saying, You not allowd to take stuff without paying for it ?
  9. Niskin Augur


    It wasn't even remotely that innocent. The chest was there before the completion, looting the chest caused the completion to happen. Dropping the task and then looting the chest did not cause the completion to happen, but you still got the loot.

    A few innocents may have been caught up in this and that stinks, but most will have been doing this over and over again on purpose because they thought they were getting away with it. A warning might have been nice, but this was an easy thing to identify as an exploit when it was being done. I actually think most people just accepted it, whether it impacted their choice to continue playing EQ or not. The few that have posted to push back on the suspension are probably a minority of those who were suspended.
  10. kizant Augur

    There's plenty of flaws. I even know of some cases where a group had only done the event one time and only half of them got the suspension. And one that did hadn't looted anything and they didn't even repeat the mission. Did they accidentally quit the mission before looting or something? I don't know but not everyone suspended was even exploiting it. So, that's one mistake.

    Not warning about it after all these years is definitely another mistake. Leaving it implemented like that in the first place when they know better was a mistake. And I'd still argue it's a mistake to suspend an entire account instead of doing something on a character and/or in-game basis.

    The stat food issue is a decent example and I do know plenty of people who either don't know about force feeding or just don't bother. It's just harder to see how they could tell when someone is doing it. Not that they have to be able to figure that out perfectly like we've seen but still. If anyone actually thinks they'd post a warning first before deciding to punish for it you're kidding yourself. And right now it's almost impossible to use the new stat food without force feeding. Slime alone is so rare I've managed to make 2 drinks lol.
  11. narksar Lorekeeper

    No, that's already explicitly stated in law.
  12. Jumbur Augur


    I hope they will increase either the recipe-yield or drop rate if they change the force-feeding mechanic, and I would be very surprised if they issued suspensions regarding this.


    You are right that their suspension-script had too many false positives, and costumer-relations do have some apologies to make, imho.
    kizant likes this.
  13. narksar Lorekeeper

    I wasn't being literal. You seemed to want a "lore" or "story" or "explanation" justifying such things and I provided it. No it's not the same as breaking the door open yourself, expansion from a spell in "lore" would have greater force/power/energy than one's arm would.

    You're right, the intent behind a locked door would be to restrict passage. Lock picking bypasses this restriction as a matter of game function and lore.

    I like your air/water elemental idea, that would be one of the more valid lore explanations.

    The issue remains, if it was something that rose to the level of an "exploit", why wasn't it fixed 15 years prior to when it was fixed? Though, at the same time, I've not heard of anyone who got in trouble in the past or recently for using that "trick" so I think that negates the full relevance of this back and forth between you and I.

    If no one was suspended or disciplined for it, then, meh. That might even mean that Daybreak/SOE didn't see it as something that rose to the level of an "exploit" themselves. Just something they didn't want/prefer.
  14. Thrillho Augur

    I didn't ask for any examples. I was just quoting your response to some other person.

    Liquid cannot resist shear, which is why it takes on the form of the container it is contained within. If it can produce and absorb significant force (it deals damage and can be dealt damage) and still retain its shape, it is contained, and wouldn't be able to pass through any cracks or bars. The logic / lore is flawed. Why not try a gelatinous cube? Those seem to be malleable, and even flatten out when they die. Maybe they can flatten out and slide through the cracks - or UNDER! There we go!

    This is the problem when trying to find justification behind an exploit. The intent is to not get through a door without proper access. The intent behind the loot in a mission was to provide a lockout along with it. Circumventing this stuff is against the rules, clearly, and you shouldn't need to be told it in each specific case. You don't have an argument against speeding by saying "well you didn't specifically say I couldn't speed along this road." Speeding is still illegal, regardless of the severity of it. Is a cop going to bust you for doing 1mph over? Probably not. 2? 3? 4? When is enough? Apparently we broke the camel's back with this one.

    Resources. Bigger fish to fry. Although it was an exploit, maybe they felt it wasn't large enough of one to warrant a big change in the way things were dealt with? See my speeding example above.

    Aw, but I'm having so much fun! Plus, I doubt there are any logs that track character movement through doors. Not as easy of an exploit to penalize.
  15. Funk Augur

    The unfortunate truth is with this game model players really have no control over anything.

    The guy with an epic at lvl 40, did he have any control when a GM removed his epic weapon? Did I have any control when a GM showed up outa thin air and said my name was a violation and removed it? (it was 100% not a violation)
    Do we have any control when you are banned for something you may not have done?
    How about control when you have to make a new account just to reference your existing account that is suspended?

    I could go on, the point is we signed up for this and got ourselves addicted to this game that we have no control over. So when they nerf things for no reason, flip the game upside down because they want to, ban people that deserve it and others who don't. We as consumers are to blame for allowing the industry to evolve into this model.
  16. narksar Lorekeeper

    My mistake; then I should say that was my intent.

    Water expands when it freezes. It will conform to the relative shape of the objects acting against it before it expands beyond the confines of those objects, if it gets cold enough and there is enough of the water. Don't believe me? Put a can of coke in the freezer for a couple days and look at what happens to it. Spoiler alert: the can may explode.

    Just because we can't think of a good reason right now, doesn't mean a reasonable one doesn't exist, short of Daybreak explicitly stating "Being able to cancel a mission and then looting the chest without locking the mission, is considered to be an exploit, you've been warned".

    True. But the dynamics of cancelling a mission in a manner which would be considered an exploit would apply regardless of which mission, if it was clearly communicated that that was an example of an exploit. We know its illegal to speed because its explicitly stated in law. If the law merely said "drive safe" and then you got a ticket for speeding because you didn't realize you were not driving safely in that particular instance, that would be what happened with this "exploit".

    Some states its 1mph over, in California its generally accepted that you must exceed 10mph over the speed limit. But, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, we know speeding is illegal because it is explicitly stated in law, not because it merely correlates with another fundamental concept such as "safe driving".

    Agreed, or they didn't care.

    Well, I'm not trying to take away your fun ;). It wasn't like they told people it was an exploit. If there was a GM who was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on some gamers, they could just go to dungeons where the illusioning was used, wait, watch, and then berate/penalize.
  17. narksar Lorekeeper

    I get what you mean, but you're also blaming the victims, which is not good. Victims are victims, and no amount of blame justifies anyone victimizing them.
  18. Sissruukk Augur

    How can you consider someone a victim when they knowingly do something against the EULA?
  19. Tincan New Member

    Regarding prelooting items:
    Crestra's earring, part 1, Here or Over There, for example: Step 1 is to kill 7 different mobs, then return to NPC. Step 2 is to collect certain items, which dropped from the mobs killed in the first step. But you can pre-loot the items, then after the first hail, you trade/cancel with a pet to get the update for step 2. Clearly you bypassed step 2 by using a dubious game mechanic. There's no way that this could not be considered unintended. Yet no one at DBG will answer my repeated question if this is a suspendable offence. I, for 1 don't want to find out the hard way, so I'll never preloot for a quest again.

    People's concerns are valid. How many other things that we take for granted might be considered an exploit? How many surprise suspensions might be on the horizon? So why wasn't a warning, as the OP suggested, the first step taken?
  20. Roxxlyy Community Relations

    All I can really do is reiterate here - players who repeatedly used this unintentional mechanic to gain a significant advantage in-game were given a temporary suspension. However, this time around, we didn't permanently ban any accounts for these actions. This, more or less, was a warning - just a bit harsher than many players would prefer.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page