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. Khat_Nip Meow

    No one in my guild was suspended. Statistically you would think at least some might have been caught up in a false positive if their process was flawed but that wasn't the case.
  2. Sheex Goodnight, Springton. There will be no encores.

    And you’re basing your opinion of this “flaw” on what, exactly? Suspended people saying they didn’t do it, and even if they did it’s been done for years?
  3. Huna Journeyman

    Not really. If I supposedly dodged the lock out multiple times to earn a 7 day time out the rest of my group should all have received the same. The fact that did not happen says their process was flawed.

    When 2 players out of 6 doing the same thing during a mission get flagged for exploiting but the other 4 didn't should say something very loud to Daybreak.
  4. code-zero Augur

    What does the OP think will happen? Maybe Daybreak will say, "Wow! That's right! We never thought of that! Let's apologize and put the loot pinata back in the game!"

    Reality is that you've not found a flaw in their logic.
  5. Oakenblade Former ForumQuest Champion

  6. Huna Journeyman

    What's to hate? If their detection technique did what they say it should have there should have either been 2 less people suspended or 4 more suspended. From my experience and that didn't happen.

    I'm just saying the statements they put out didn't match up to what actually happened. Sure they can do and say whatever they want, its their game.
    narksar likes this.
  7. Oakenblade Former ForumQuest Champion

  8. Scorrpio Augur

    I would still just want to get an official answer to the question in the other thread that got locked. Namely: is it ok to do an HA up to the namer, then drop it, and do it again right away? Namer loot in HA is more or less equivalent to the chest in a mission. Sure, you don't always get one, but it is essentially an uncontested camp spot whenever you want one. I don't want to get hit with a suspension hammer cause I been farming the Mysteries HA.
  9. Scorrpio Augur

    To elaborate:
    Fact: lockout is assigned on completion, and you can drop the shared task and re-acquire it over and over. Even if you do it right up to the very last step. If lockout is not supposed to be avoided, why no assign it on mission acquire?

    Fact: there are rewards you can take out of a mission without completing it:
    Xp from killed mobs
    Loot from killed mobs
    Collectibles and any awards that follow.
    Named mob and any loot/achievement tied to it.

    Fact: there are ways to rigidly tie rewards to mission completion:
    Completion xp
    Plat reward
    Alt currency
    Achievements for first completion and associated rewards.

    Chest is a gray area cause opening it is supposedly the final step but you can drop mission and still do it.

    The REAL culprit, IMHO, is that short period between dropping task and getting booted. It gives a window to do all sorts of stuff. Why is it even there? So you can't evac out of a bad fight by dropping task?

    One easy fix is to make task drop start a 10-20 sec timer. Timer ends and you are booted from zone AND shared task at same time. Result: not in task = not in zone = cant loot.
  10. Millianna Augur

    To the person who said that wasn’t punishment - the proof is just above this post.
  11. Xnao Augur

    I found a flaw in the time of your posting.

    Does your lord know you are not in the fields?

    I detect more than a suspension in your future, possibly a whipping?
  12. Ironnuts Journeyman

    Post 88 you know DB is not going to answer your question directly, because you will just take it as: ok no on that, so that must mean yes on everything else you come up with to beat lock outs. I’ve seen your post on here you don’t seem so stupid to think what your doing is ok. Especially after all the hub bub.

    OP thank you for the Perry Mason moment you really broke this wide open. They should name a zone or boss after you in appreciation of your deeply original thread. Your wisdom shines for all to see.

    There’s only so many 1’s and 0’s the interwebs can handle, stop clogging it up with nonsense before ya break it.
  13. Moege Augur

    With the new changes:

    1. Request mission (Fell Foilage)
    2. Never enter the zone and drop it before anyone zones in
    3. Still get a lockout when the group completes it
    4. Requester receives same lockout as group

    The result is that people are not willing to help request missions. Previously it was not a problem and people were willing to request as there was no downside. With this change it feels like the community is being forced to behave against the norm.

    If the requester did not get a lockout you could farm the mission if everyone logged in a new character, repeat that for X number of character/accounts. Would probably be done a few times before people gets tired of switching.

    *With so many threads about this change thought I would whine in here
  14. narksar Augur

    You seem to have ignored the part where she went to the hospital (even though you referenced it)...if coffee is so hot that you need skin grafts for a burn resulting from it, it seems as though the temperature of the coffee exceeded any reasonable temperature any average person would expect. There's a difference between 130F and 190F, yet both are considered "hot". The McDonald's coffee was over 190F. 180F is considered sufficient for sanitizing dishes in the restaurant industry because it kills bacteria so quickly. 190F liquids don't belong in your mouth as it will kill the cells it comes into contact with. Her injuries would have been worse had she drank the coffee. I did forget to mention McDonalds had received hundreds of complaints about their coffee being "too hot" (as the temperature made it unfit for human consumption) and McDonalds chose to ignore the complaints.
  15. narksar Augur

    Wow, obviously you haven't read my posts. I don't support the existence of a loot pinata. Yes, I have found a flaw in their declared logic.
  16. narksar Augur

    *Looks around confused*...did I just enter the twilight zone?
    Lily likes this.
  17. Millianna Augur

    Loot piñata already exist - there called heritage crates.
    Gyurika Godofwar and narksar like this.
  18. Bloodmoons New Member

    Milk and cookies anyone.

  19. Scorrpio Augur

    Ok, lets try something less specific:
    Is it ever OK to drop a shared task that assigns lockout on completion and request it again before whatever the lockout is elapsed?

    Why am I asking? Because even in all this hub-bub, DBG is contradicting itself. In that other thread that was locked, the official response that "any action that allows avoiding the lockout is an exploit". Not a peep about avoiding lockout WHILE CLAIMING THE COMPLETION REWARD.

    But then, look at the fix.
    A. If you drop task you still get lockout on its completion. But guess what? If everyone drops and task is never completed, still no lockout.
    B. You can't loot anything in the instance if you drop the task. Again, the message is you CAN drop the task (and again, if all participants do so, then no completion = no lockout). But you can no longer claim the chest.

    Fix part B prevents same team from having the shot at loot over and over. Fix part A prevents same team from taking multiple characters (alts, bots) through the task at a rapid pace, claiming a large number of spell tablets.

    But guess what is NOT being fixed? Exactly the ability to drop the task prematurely, and avoid the lockout at the cost of mission completion reward.

    Look at who is suspended:
    People who did Fell Foliage over and over in order to claim the chest again and again.
    Who is not suspended:
    People who did any other shared tasks over and over in order to complete their Hunter/Collection achievements.

    If the offense is indeed in ANY means of beating the lockout, they should stop beating around the bush, and assign lockout timer on request. Which would make the above A and B fixes utterly redundant.

    My original question still stands.
  20. narksar Augur

    I don't disagree with you, but I think you should shift this to its own thread. I find your statements and concerns to be valid and legitimate and warranting consideration but I'm concerned it may skew this thread too much. Yes, there have been some skews already but I am trying to guide them all back to the basic idea. Your ideas are valid within the boundaries of the concepts that I am trying to convey to DayBreak, but I'm concerned your concern is too specific and I think it would be better on its own thread than within this one. If you're concerned about it being locked, then I would advocate actively trying to re-orient and amalgamate the majority of the posts back into the original premise as I've been doing.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.