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. Niskin Clockwork Arguer

    The answer is in how they constructed the fix. You still don't get the lockout until the mission is completed, even if you dropped the task. The lockout comes with the completion. The chest was a half-step between finishing and triggering completion. That is the hole that was exploited.
  2. Sissruukk Rogue One

    You all that are nitpicking the real life examples being used are missing the entire point of why they are being used, as if to still absolve yourselves of doing any wrong in a video game (because its not real). The point is this:
    You are responsible for your own actions.
    This holds true in game or out of game. It doesn't matter if the coffee is 103 degrees hot or 190 degrees hot, it is still too hot, and should be handled safely. It doesn't matter if the exploit is known to the company for years or not, it is still and exploit, and goes against their rules, and you should not have done it. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
  3. fortuneteller Augur

    Said direct, you got caught with your hands in the cookie jar, you only got yourself to blame, stop blaming others.
  4. Polekn Augur

    That's a good business practice to have customers pay for your lousy programming if you do not care about a day after tomorrow when no more customers left.
    narksar likes this.
  5. narksar Augur

    That is not a point of this thread nor have I seen anyone make such a point in this thread.

    No one has said that people are not responsible for their actions. It should be noted that Daybreak is also responsible for their own actions.

    A liquid which is 103 degrees doesn't require the same level of care as a liquid that is 190 degrees. 103 degree water isn't even as hot as a hot bath. If you jumped into a swimming pool that was 103 degrees, you'd probably enjoy its warmth, if the swimming pool's water was 190 degrees and you jumped into it, you'd literally die. 190 degree liquid cannot be safely consumed and therefor should not be presented as a beverage unless with an explicit warning and a 190 degree beverage is literally not even fit to be used for its advertised and intended purpose; drinking it. If something you are going to consume with your mouth is hospitalizing-skin-graft level dangerous, its not fit to be put in your mouth and should not be sold as such. If something is fit for consumption, then one can logically conclude that it is not hospitalizingly dangerous or subject to the relevant care or handling of such a danger.

    The guy who just said that "you are responsible for your own actions" says that Daybreak isn't responsible for its own actions or lack thereof? That doesn't make sense.

    That doesn't mean people fully realized it was an "actionable exploit", IE: not intended and or bad to a degree to warrant suspension. Then again, no one is arguing that people "should" have done it either. This thread is about the ideas associated with such actions on Daybreak's part and how their presented logic is lacking. I'm not claiming it is 100% wrong, merely the logical equation is lacking.

    The simplicity that you claim ignores a number of points, see above.
  6. narksar Augur

    If mommy didn't say you couldn't have a cookie, then what rule did you violate? If mommy said "no sweets" and you ate an oatmeal raisin cookie from the cookie jar, did you violate the rule? Daybreak says "yes," and I say "yes, but they may not have fully realized that that's what mommy meant".
  7. kizant Augur

    The parent/child analogies are probably my favorite. It's funny how some people can't seem to see themselves as an equal even when they're a paying customer. I guess it's that authoritarian mindset that some people get beat into them or something.
  8. Niskin Clockwork Arguer

    I'm going to jump in on this nugget, and call b***s***. Run mission, get loot, get lockout. Run mission, drop task, get loot, no lockout. They knew because they had to actually take the steps manually to get around it. They didn't slip and fall and accidentally get around the lockout, they took their finger and clicked a button at the appropriate time to avoid the lockout. It's simple logic actually.
    Gialana likes this.
  9. Duhbeast Augur

    All of you white knights in here putting all of the responsibility on the players are hilarious. The main issue is that the devs don't know their game enough to see this as a possible exploit. And then using an axe when a scalpel is all that is needed. If you were to add 6 hour suspension for every time the mission was ran, it would not even be close to a week. Why would most of us have the entire expansion done already if all we did was sit around and exploit cactus? Absolutely ridiculous the trolls on here defending the horrible coding for that mission, and the devs blindly not seeing it was a possible issue. Keep blaming the players for your awesome coding though!

    Gyurika Godofwar likes this.
  10. Sissruukk Rogue One

    It is the very point of the whole situation. You, and others, keep missing it. Just because something is there doesn't mean you should use it, even if the company is aware of it being there. You should always have Admiral Akbar in the back of your head yelling out

    Tell you what, want a good analogy? How about this one...
    The detergent pod challenge. Instructions on the box clearly state that you should not put these in your mouth, ingest them in any way, etc. Yet, people are doing it. And some are going to get injured by it. And you can bet someone is going to sue because they were injured because they will argue that the pods make it too easy to do stupid things with.

    Now, apply this to here.
    Exploit exists. But DBG has a rule stating that you shall not use exploits. People do anyway. Then they get in trouble for breaking said rule. People complain about getting in trouble because the exploit made it too easy to do stupid things with.

    But, I am willing to bet you will find something wrong with this analogy anyway, and find someway to blame the detergent company for the decisions that these people are making to ingest detergent pods.
  11. Niskin Clockwork Arguer

    Every potential exploit is either an oversight in design or a bug in the code. I'm not defending that it existed, but I'm also not accepting that its existence meant people should use it. Yes, I blame the players for trying to get ahead through nefarious means. The players made the choice and they got unexpected punishment for it. Plenty of people didn't even look for an exploit, and some who found it didn't use it. Those people are probably happier with their choices this last week than those who were suspended. It's like that choice made all the difference. Who was in control of that choice again?
  12. TheStugots Augur

    You do realize with a 6 hour lock out people would've only had to run it 28 times to equal a week, right? I'd be willing to bet many, many people hit above that number.
  13. narksar Augur

    Businesses have a way of...over leveraging their positions against customers because they have the resources to fight against a consumer even if the consumer is completely in the legal right. I knew someone once who walked through a Walmart and a heavy object had been placed very high in the store, but was not stored safely. It fell off and landed on the person I knew and injured them. Walmart used their money to simply fight the lawsuit under the premise that the woman already had some similar injuries and therefor it was "okay" for them to injure her again as, they claimed, it made it difficult to discern how bad her injuries were from their items falling on her and were willing to spend exorbitant amounts of money to defend themselves in spite of the fact she did literally nothing wrong and was not legally obligated to stay at home to avoid subsequent injuries. She ended up settling because she couldn't afford to pursue it to the level of full analysis.

    Additionally, the "agreements" between us and Daybreak are called "unilateral agreements" and carry some different legal significances that are not the same as an agreement made by two parties that sat down and customized the agreement.
    kizant likes this.
  14. narksar Augur

    It could be a trap, but that wouldn't reflect well on Daybreak. If they announced "don't do this specific thing" and then people kept doing it, yes, I'd totally support that trap.

    I doubt that person will win the lawsuit, unless there's a legal concept that somehow correlates with that. I can't think of one at this time that would work. Unless it was a young kid, but if it has a warning to keep away from children, then that may be seen as legally legitimate -covering.

    Some would argue that if you have ever illusioned through a door, you exploited, but without Daybreak coming out clearly and explicitly on that, how do you know that that is an exploit or an actionable exploit? Devs literally left things in the code like snakes kicking because it was a callback of older MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons). One could call it an unintentional bug, but it doesn't really matter and no one really acts on it. It was an unintentional bug for the "Moss Covered Twig" to be primary hand usable and have a delay of, I think, 11. Does that mean that using it was an "exploit"?

    I don't find it to be comparable. The detergent company didn't sue the people for doing those things with the detergent pods. Even in the context that you are presenting this, its not the same thing. The provider of the bug (Daybreak) was also the one who imposed the consequence. Tide, who provided the detergent, isn't subsequently imposing a consequence on the customers. But, with that being said, so if I continue the conversation and point out flaws, I'm somehow behaving inappropriately? Why must you berate because someone can continue to point out flaws with an attempt to boil it down to its most basic form? Why do you condemn that? Some things involve greater conversation than 10 words.
  15. Yimin Augur

    The punishment for this is not enough , they as a player should have a roll back as well as any raid they cheated on should also be rolled back ...

  16. Corwyhn Lionheart Guild Leader, Lions of the Heart

    Suspensions are supposed to be penalties. Suspensions are also warnings. Nothing contradictory here.
    Elricvonclief and Gialana like this.
  17. Dewhead Journeyman

    No, they should be banned permanently. And flogged. And made to walk naked through the streets of the Overthere camp while a Combine Arcron Shamestress walks behind them with a bell.

    ... or maybe you should mind your own business and let the company that runs the game mind their *actual* business. They had to make a calculated decision on what they could do that would convey the appropriate message about their level of tolerance for exploiting while attempting to have the lowest negative impact to their recurring subscriptions. Rollbacks like that would take significant work effort and would create much more strife.
  18. narksar Augur

    I think the argument is that they failed to conduct their business properly. Though, merely removing the benefits that someone gained from 1 hour of claimed misconduct seems simple and fair.
  19. Bobsmith Augur

  20. Lily Augur

    You really can't be sure of that. Those who were suspended probably got more keys, spells, and loot prior to suspension than they'll be able to get in one week after the mission is made more difficult.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.