Judgement_Dave

Didn't see any problems with that (for the audience of general games players, rather than something just for CoX players).

So we know that Posi tries to play 1 MA arc (picked at random) per day - and people wonder why there aren't more Dev's Choices yet?

And there's going to be a villain returning who wasn't in the game yet... 5th anniversary.. used to have 5th column... blah... blah...

It's obvious!

We're getting the return of Protean! Sharpen ya arrows, Manti!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you are a bit dense here, vet rewards unlock costume pieces and some bonus things, that's all.
what you are saying is that it ruins the game, giving everyone the awesome button or the insta-win skill.....really dense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it isn't game breaking.
But its the effort/time/money put in.
Someone who has the veteran awards will (unless they have been ill/indesposed/kinda odd) have played for that ammount of time.
Its a Veteran REWARD.
In fact, suggesting that theres nothing wrong with getting the reward but no badge could be seen as equally dense.

[/ QUOTE ]
someone that buy's the rewards also takes money/time/effort in it, but then all at ones.
also, it's already rare enough to see anyone with a 52 vet reward simply because ppl get bored with the game really fast, nothing really new to do is only lowering the fanbase.

i'm open minded here, just looking to the logic behind it.
vet rewards are there to lore players to keep paying for it, but lately ppl get more adult and see it's not worth the money.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that, for many people, the game isn't worth subbing to for 52 months, but it is worth paying 52 months worth of subs to get vet rewards which don't really impact the game?

Am I reading your post right?

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah it's kinda unclear.

But then given that this post seems to be largely aimed at stirring the pot pointlessly I'd suggest it gets locked ASAP

[/ QUOTE ]
Or you could, like, y'know, realise that LAAF could be pronounced the same as 'laugh' and see this as humour.

Serious gamers everywhere are sending LAAFs your way

So LAAF is maybe a mock-organisation dedicated to trying to lighten the mood and stop teh intawebz bein such srs biznizz.

[ QUOTE ]
Mudflation - it's pretty much unavoidable in MMOs with economy-based reward systems. I experienced rather extreme examples in EverQuest over the course of 3-4 expansions - the constant increases in gear power made previous loot almost worthless trash, but the constant influx of items and platinum/gold into the economy made the currency worth less and less. Then the gold farmers moved in and wrecked most of the economy so that you could barely afford anything except old trash (which wasn't good enough to let you do the newer content) without buying plat or farming it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which doesn't quite happen in CoX PvE as there is nothing that requires the fattest loot to beat and old SOs haven't become worthless trash and should still see you able to make a good build.

The market is generally for things people want - not things that are needed to still play the game.

Some of the talk about mispronunciation sounds like extreme hyper-bowl-ee to me.

Think the worst I noticed in the past were usually US placenames - some of the rivers/lakes etc with indian names seem to be pronounced very differently to anything I could imagine from the spelling. Heck - even Arkansas seems a little odd when you first hit it and know the straightforward Kansas.

Guess there's probably enough placenames with odd pronunciations in the UK - but I don't notice them as much having grown up with them.

Though there are also some great English names and surnames with wild and wacky pronunciation - IIRC this is part of the reason why English names get a whole chapter to themselves in Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that no sooner had I deleted the missions and sent out this shout out, my creative juices have dried up.

[/ QUOTE ]
A small arc using the age-old theme of hubris?

So does this mean the Twisted Tales can be republished on live for now?

Please...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Recluse is laying claim to a new archipelago, mysteriously surfaced after centuries underwater... (Yes I nicked that specifically from Jingo by Terry Pratchett ) - what's Lusca doing here? And are those...Atlanteans?! Is Lusca, in fact, a remnant of an ancient civilisation?! Gadzooks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that lusca is a most Curious Squid indeed.

*recieves boot to the head*

[/ QUOTE ]
That's no doubt a pop culture reference that I missed (never got into Pratchett) but I must point out that Lusca is an octopus, not a squid...

I hate it that so many people seem to call her a squid or mention calamari when she's out. It's no wonder that she attacks IP - it's just striking out against people who so blatantly misidentify her.

Sorry for following the derail, Sing...

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Fury. Everyone who has posted a definition so far has agreed with me in saying, the definition of an 'exploit' MUST include the premise of said exploit giving 'an unfair advantage over other players'


[/ QUOTE ]
A definition of an exploit does not need to include 'an unfair advantage', merely an advantage that was unintended by the devs.

The phrase 'unfair advantage over other players' would suggest to me that not all characters/players could use the exploit, so it is unfair to those that cannot (note: cannot, not 'do not' or 'choose not to'). All characters/players can use the same methods in MA to gain rewards at the inflated rate unintended by the devs - so it is 'fair' but it is still an unintended advantage and an exploit.

[ QUOTE ]

Now that the majority of intellectual posters agree with me on what an exploit is, and we're done arguing if farming is an exploit (because by this reasoning it isn't)


[/ QUOTE ]
Nicely shimmying up to an ad hominem there. Are the posters who disagree with you, myself included, merely in the minority of intellectual posters or are we more akin to sub-intelligent pond scum?

Funnily enough about 30 minutes after the I14 patchnotes went up I made a point about clarification of terms.
[ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that the code of conduct section got in there for MA...

Since you reserve the right to ban anything at anytime and for any reason, I guess there's no point asking for clarification of the terms 'parodies and derivative works' and 'unintended statistical advantages'.


[/ QUOTE ]
It was obvious that these terms wouldn't be strictly defined to us (due to people skirting to the limits whenever limits are known) but that they would most likely cause some weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if and when the devs had to stamp down on people going too far.

IMO an 'exploit' will probably be judged an exploit due to the 'unintended statistical advantages' that can be achieved.

The devs will have their stats of xp/INF/reward rates and character progressions from before MA. They'll know (or be able to find out) what the reward/progression rate was per mission/hour/level/whatever before MA. They'll no doubt be able to see what the distributions were - so they'll see what the 'average' players acheived and what the uber-efficient farmers achieved before MA.

They'll have similar figures for post-MA. And they should be able to establish what the rewards are for MA only missions.

Exactly where they draw the line from this data I don't know - but I'm guessing that looking at pre- and post-I14 will be how they establish a limit.

Surely no-one could argue that earning rewards at twice the rate that the uber-efficient-I13-farmer could achieve is statistically advantageous? And if it is and the devs didn't intend that level of gain, then it is an exploit.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While we have accomplished some of those goals with the initial launch of Mission Architect, some have found ways to abuse the system we put in place. We are not blind to this happening, nor did we not expect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the subject of Chinese Whispers, may be worth re-reading the bolded line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ack, double negative hurt brain.

Given that I read the original and still managed to misread it my point about miscommunication still stands. What chance do those hearing about it 3rd or 4th hand have?

So they expected it and still let it go forward? That's probably even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
But whatever you do someone will find some way to exploit something.

It's the fight of 100k+ players with many, many, many manhours of looking for exploits/freestuffz vs 50 devs + a few thousand manhours of testing by devs/beta-testers.

Sheer complexity of the system means that there will be a sweet spot somewhere which grants an unforeseen advantage that is considered an exploit, and sheer numbers of players means that someone will find it.

It actually would have been worse IMO if the devs said "we never expected anything like this" as that would show that the devs were really naive. As it is they expected some exploitation (hence the acceptable use warnings in I14 patch notes) to be possible, but probably didn't expect the scale of exploitation and misuse that has been seen.

It's like gun crime. I expect some people to be killed by guns - but if all of a sudden half the EUs population is being killed daily I could state:
While guns no doubt accomplished some of the lawful goals intended by the manufacturers, some have found ways to abuse the weapons they created. I am not blind to this happening, nor did I not expect it.

And it'd be true. I expect that lawful use of firearms have helped in some situations, and I always expected firearms to be used by some for criminal 'exploits'... but it would be the scale of misuse that would surprise me.



OK - firearms... maybe not the best analogy, just the 1st that came to mind, although I'm not comparing the MA to firearms, nor those using exploits to murderers. All I am pointing out is that the phrase 'nor did we not expect it' can easily refer to the existence of exploits and still leave the devs able to be surprised by the scale of exploitation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't mean this at all.

Originally, when arcs were being marked as invalid (due to patches invalidating arcs and due to the bug where accessing missions from a server with a different language wrongly marked an arc as invalid) they did not appear on the search/browse listings. The same happened (and should still happen) if an arc is auto-pulled due to crossing the complaints threshold.

I'd imagine the same sort of system will be used with banned & locked arcs existing on the servers and taking up a space but being hidden from the public. So search will improve and appropriate content will be easier to find.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't, it needs to be fixed because a lot of the farm missions are still on the mission list, fully selectable but not playable. Pressing play and accepting produces no effect. If they're going to remove them, then remove them properly: get them off the MA list and leave it for the "appropriate" MA missions only.

[/ QUOTE ]
But have they taken the actions mentioned in Positron's post yet?

The currently visible but unavailable to play missions may just be arcs invalidated by changes in the patch (e.g. maps removed) and not ones blocked/removed due to being considered to contain exploits.

Looks to me like Saxtus did the title change from 'on' to 'is'.

[ QUOTE ]
I really hope they wont start datamining who gained too many lvls to fast, that would mean they have less ressources to get I15 ready and that would prolly mean they push it back for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny thing about datamining - if you know what question you want to ask then most of the work can normally be shifted to the machines. It's not actually a dev with a slide rule and abacus going through a memory core bit by bit.

So moving on this could probably be done without any real impact on I15.

Heck IMO it's highly probable that the devs have done their datamine to help them establish what they see as unacceptable already. It wouldn't have been a smart move to announce action will be taken if the devs hadn't had at least a quick look at a sample to ensure that they could easily (and automatically) identify places where action needs to be taken (in their opinion).

The part that's left is running through the arcs/charcaters/accounts applying whatever action needs to be taken against those that are deemed unacceptable - and again that ought to be automated (though it probbaly would involve more dev/GM involvement than the research/datamine stage needed).




EDIT: Of course I expect the devs will have looked for automatic detection of arcs/characters/accounts that catches a few false positives. If they have false negatives then people would just flock to them and start arguing that they were OK as they were left untouched by the devs.

So if you do get hit with some kind of GM action and really don't think that you did anything wrong it'd be worth petitioning/appealing IMO. The line will have been drawn knowing that those who know that they're in-the-wrong probbaly won't bother appealing as they know they'll lose...

It's an ancient Urdu word loosely meaning "I see no ninja editing of thread titles to erase typos".

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno on union theres a badge hunter that was sad that he couldnt purchase the veteran badges.
He reached 600 or was it 500 badges as a 3 month vet.
Which is awesome but he cant break top 10 without the veteran badges.

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't we start the 'Dumb' line of badges then?

£10 - I'm Dumb
£50 - I'm Really Dumb
£250 - I may be the Dumbest Person in my Postal Region
£500 - I should Seek Help
£1000 - Why am I single?
£10000 - I'm Soon to be Bankrupt

Little development needed and they'd bring in additional revenue.

EDIT: Obviously character-centric badges - so you'd need to buy them for each badging alt.

Actually I dare say that some anti-MA posters could probably introduce the word 'floccinaucinihilipilification' into their posts and use it correctly...

Maybe Posi was just throwing down a linguistic gauntlet and wishes to see how the players respond.

One of the best aspects of Positron's post about MA exploitation abuse has been that it's introduced a new word to so many people.

Previously I'd see the word 'egregious' once every blue moon - but now I'd be surprised if anyone reading the EU/US forums in the past day doesn't know the word. Heck - there's been times in the US thread that see the words egregious or egregiously used five or more times in a single post!

I'd like to suggest that the devs make a controversial post at least once a month (once a week would be great) and that they try to include words that may be new to a great subset of their audience. A kind of 'word of the week' or 'word of the month' system to help educate us as we flame.

Can I also suggest 'apocryphal' for the word list.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's really intelligent because you'd still get a huge list of missions clogging up the MA, fully selectable (as they are now) but just unplayable (as they are now). That really helps bringing the "appropriate" MA content to the fore, it does.


[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't mean this at all.

Originally, when arcs were being marked as invalid (due to patches invalidating arcs and due to the bug where accessing missions from a server with a different language wrongly marked an arc as invalid) they did not appear on the search/browse listings. The same happened (and should still happen) if an arc is auto-pulled due to crossing the complaints threshold.

I'd imagine the same sort of system will be used with banned & locked arcs existing on the servers and taking up a space but being hidden from the public. So search will improve and appropriate content will be easier to find.

[ QUOTE ]
It's kinda weird, isn't it? Positron's I15 recap was attacked for being PR fluff, and now he's being told he needs better PR

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not weird.

1 - These views have been expressed by different people. Whatever the devs say some will think it's too empty of real meat and others will think it's saying too much.

2 - These differing views are on two different statements from Posi (the anniversary announcement and the exploits post). Funnily enough two different pieces of communication have differing pros and cons.

3 - Better PR does not mean the content-free, avoiding answering any questions guff that you maybe believe it means. Someone who is seen to deliver empty PR fluff needs better PR just as much as someone who goes into unnecessary details and can't be accused of delivering any sort of fluff.

Of course - all that's hard to sum up in one line and a smiley - so you may have lost the +1 post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Read more carefully.

The first sentence of the extract from the I14 patch notes is about banning missions containing 'exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages' - that could cover some farming missions (although I've asked before for definitions of terms which haven't been provided).

The second sentence mentions that players/authors advertising such exploitable missions may be banned from MA or have their game account closed. The second sentence even explicitly states advertising through the Mission Architect System.

So:
Farms providing great returns may be considered to contain 'exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages'.
If so then the authors may have their game account closed for publishing them (i.e. for advertising them through MA by making them available in the search browser).

I'd say that that pretty much mentions banning people for farming if farming is considered to use 'exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Says ABSOLUTELY nothing about people who NEVEr made farm missions but just joined them.

It only cover people CREATINg farm missions and not even that, since farming wasnt an exploit before positrons post.


[/ QUOTE ]
More or less true.

Farming was an exploit before Positron's post if it was deemed by the rednames to be an exploit. If some farms were using the MA in ways not envisaged by the devs to gain greater rewards (a statistical advantage) then they may be considered an exploit. All Posi has done is maybe make it clearer that the farming enabled by the MA falls into the exploitative zone.

According to the patchnotes you could possibly just join a farm and not be doing anything explicitly declared as wrong.

However anyone recruiting people for a farm which is deemed to provide 'unintended statistical advantages' could be said to be advertising it and so will have broken the rules laid down in the patch notes.

And anyone mentioning how easy it is to level on the forums/in-game without putting a very definite negative-spin on it could possibly be guilty of advertising the practice...

And anyone giving an exploitative arc a positive rating could be said to be advertising it.

But then, all I pointed out was that you're claim that the patch notes did not mention farming nor did they mention account bans was untrue.

BTW it's not very important what is/isn't to be punished until we know whether the devs are going to punish people and how. Posi's post was a shot across the bows that leaves pretty drastic measures open as a course of action available to the devs if anyone is farming in an unacceptable way.

Sure they might ban every account that's ever managed a post 20 level in less than 1 mission. But until I see them doing that I'd consider it very unlikely. But the post makes it clear that they can. I'd guess that most people getting past a sticking point or even getting new characters to SOs would be pretty much unaffected.

So stop doing anything that you think is taking the mickey out of the system and you'll probably be more-or-less ok unless you've been hammering the MA farms like mad. And if you have been doing this, then did you really think you'd get any sympathy if the devs decide to address the situation?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

MA abuse was mentioned in the I14 patch notes, and players were told it was not allowed.
The warning has been in place since I14 went live - and if people ignored it, then that doesn't mean they're not guilty of abusing the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link to the warning in I14 patch notes ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the important part:

[ QUOTE ]
NCsoft reserves the right to ban any missions that contain any exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages. Players and/or “authors” that advertise exploitable missions through our forums, in-game chat system or through the Mission Architect system may be banned from the Mission Architect System or may have their game account closed.


[/ QUOTE ]

The rest is on the I14 Patch Notes thread in the Announcements section.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely nothing in it about banning people for farming.
Read carefully........
Its about banning missions.....
Not even about using an exploit, only about making it public etc....

[/ QUOTE ]
Read more carefully.

The first sentence of the extract from the I14 patch notes is about banning missions containing 'exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages' - that could cover some farming missions (although I've asked before for definitions of terms which haven't been provided).

The second sentence mentions that players/authors advertising such exploitable missions may be banned from MA or have their game account closed. The second sentence even explicitly states advertising through the Mission Architect System.

So:
Farms providing great returns may be considered to contain 'exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages'.
If so then the authors may have their game account closed for publishing them (i.e. for advertising them through MA by making them available in the search browser).

I'd say that that pretty much mentions banning people for farming if farming is considered to use 'exploits that provide unintended statistical advantages'.

[ QUOTE ]
Again farming comm officers is NOT an exploit.
I wrote several petitions in beta how easy those mobs can be farmed for xp.....they knew it.


[/ QUOTE ]
And in beta I /bugged many typos that are still in the MA tutorial. Does it mean that they are not typos because they are still there?

Simply not addressing a problem that has been reported does not mean that it's been condoned as acceptable behaviour.

EDIT: Although it was poor IMO that exploits had been reported many days before I14 went live but it still went live 1-2 weeks too early...

Be sure to /bug it as well - since the mobs weren't marked as invalid and nothing is mentioned in patch notes, I'm assuming that it's a real bug - so a few more reports from players being hit by this may help them sort it out.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually try this one: If someone left you in a room with a machine which had a button marked 'electric shocks - press me to win money' - with the electrodes hooked up to, oh I don't know, a basket full of newborn kittens, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]
You want to watch Derren Browns Trick or Treat and look at studies like the Stanford Experiment.

Hearing ingame that the burning forest may have gone walkabout as well. Not confirmed that myself.