[ QUOTE ]
What if, tomorrow, being a stalker in PvP was declared illegal and all stalkers that had previously PvP'd were given the same treatment? While admittedly this is a bit of a straw-man argument,
[/ QUOTE ]
Only a bit? How about a little fire, scarecrow?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're one of the people worried that you might have a character rolled back or lost to you, then the reason you're worried is because you KNOW you exploited the system to get the benefits you received.
Being worried about the possible punishment for egregious abuse means you know that something you've done has been egregious abuse.
So ask yourself honestly, do you feel you've been abusing the system? If not, then you have nothing to worry about. If so, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eltonio
This is over the top mental slavery.
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if, tomorrow, being a stalker in PvP was declared illegal and all stalkers that had previously PvP'd were given the same treatment? While admittedly this is a bit of a straw-man argument,
[/ QUOTE ]
Only a bit? How about a little fire, scarecrow?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you're one of the people worried that you might have a character rolled back or lost to you, then the reason you're worried is because you KNOW you exploited the system to get the benefits you received.
Being worried about the possible punishment for egregious abuse means you know that something you've done has been egregious abuse.
So ask yourself honestly, do you feel you've been abusing the system? If not, then you have nothing to worry about. If so, you have no one to blame but yourself.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a matter of whether certain individuals have abused the system, it's a matter of sticking up for what's right. Do I feel that 3-hour 50s are right? Of course not, and I'm glad that a stop has been put to this. Conversely, however, I do not believe retroactive punishment is correct either.
And saying "only exploiters complain about this" is also a fallacious argument. The same argument was used by WWII era Germany to ferret out those they believed to be anti-Nazi ("What, you're complaining that we took your neighbor away? We're taking you too, then!").
This is not a signature.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I can blame him. It was an off topic comment that did not help the original poster get the original question answered. It's just typical forumite RAEG!!1!!! and it's a sad, sad thing.
I'm all for locking this topic. The question was asked and answered and all further irrelevant, off topic stuff (including this post itself, natch) helps no one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Calm down and relax, you'll live longer.
[ QUOTE ]
Which would imply that it's a last step action, and only a 'perhaps'?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I say I might kill your family, then I'm sure you won't sweat it at all, given that there's a "might" in the sentence. Threats are threats, and regardless of whether someone goes through with them, they're an attack on that person. Don't believe me? Check out the laws in your country to see how legal making a credible threat to someone is.
People have every right to be worked up about Positron making threats, even if he doesnt' carry through with them. The number of candy-[censored] dev otakus out there is not sufficiently high to keep the game afloat if they run off all the people who don't support everything the authorities do on merit of them being the authorities...
If they actually implement what Posi's written in his post... then it won't be a threat any longer.
It'll be procedure.
And riddle me this: what difference does it make if subscriptions drop due to outrage over getting farm-smacked, or subscriptions drop due to new players (or old) getting bored after shooting to 50 before they've used up their free month from Architect?
I think (and this is just my opinion) that a bunch of angry players 'taking their ball and going home' will be a short term loss, as opposed to the continuing churn we'd see if the current system stayed in play with no changes.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
[ QUOTE ]
Viper, the point IS, no one knows, because what constitutes "abuse" of the system is STILL not spelled out.
To hurl threats like that without giving the criteria beside his whim is totally unacceptable. (In addition to making these activities RETROACTIVE crimes punishable by a death sentence to your character.)
[/ QUOTE ]
You are telling me you didn't think you were abusing the system when you participated in the massive farming?
Am I saying they should massively punish retroactively? Not at all ... Should they even punish? Maybe not ... can they threaten to make everyone understand how serious they are about this? Sure they can.
Char Site | My DeviantArt
Global=@Thornster
I'm sorry, have you been tracking the global names of everyone that ran an Architect mission that you can levy such accusations, or just everyone that isn't some sort of intolerant Internet Puritan on the forums? And you obviously have read Matt Miller's mind, since you know what he considers abuse and no one else does.
He has called many, many things "farming", yet has never threatened to retroactively destroy the characters of people who went on demon farms, or TV farms or any other mission at all. So where's the line?
Where.
Is.
The.
Line?
You don't prance around threatening a "death penalty" to your customers based on unknown and unwritten criteria. You either put down in writing for the customer base to see what is and isn't acceptable and DEFINE YOUR TERMS, or you [censored] with the virtual "death threats" until you have those terms down.
To do otherwise is to be a playground bully and the height of unprofessional behavior. I would not be surprised to find out that Miller has disappeared because he's been called onto the carpet by his bosses.
[That is the very height of unprofessional and immature behaviour, especially for the head of a studio. What a professional person would have said was:]
You keep using that word "professional" - I don't think it means what you think it means.
I know exactly what it means. You, however, seem oblivious to the distinction between "head of a customer-oriented company" and "angry customer who has been threatened by the staff."
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, have you been tracking the global names of everyone that ran an Architect mission that you can levy such accusations, or just everyone that isn't some sort of intolerant Internet Puritan on the forums? And you obviously have read Matt Miller's mind, since you know what he considers abuse and no one else does.
He has called many, many things "farming", yet has never threatened to retroactively destroy the characters of people who went on demon farms, or TV farms or any other mission at all. So where's the line?
Where.
Is.
The.
Line?
You don't prance around threatening a "death penalty" to your customers based on unknown and unwritten criteria. You either put down in writing for the customer base to see what is and isn't acceptable and DEFINE YOUR TERMS, or you [censored] with the virtual "death threats" until you have those terms down.
To do otherwise is to be a playground bully and the height of unprofessional behavior. I would not be surprised to find out that Miller has disappeared because he's been called onto the carpet by his bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the Devs can never explictly define what cionstitues a farm because, lets say they do say (and this is just a made up example):
Anything with:
----------------
20+ Collection Items
10+ Patrols
10+ Bosses
etc.
on a single map equals a farm.
What will happen? I can GUARENTEE you suddenly we'd see single maps witn EXACTLY:
----------------------
19 Collection Items
19 Patrols
9 Bosses
etc.
So, they're continuing to do what they have been doing for the past 3 weeks; using an automated app that automatically unpublishes any arc with the word 'farm' anywhere in the title or description; and any player reported farm missions are taken on a case by case basis via customer support and their GMs.
The Devs here really did break new ground as this is the first major MMO (yes I know some other very niche MMOs had it previously - but notjhing as easy to use as this is) with a built in editor for players to add their own content; so it's no wonder they're jumping in and trying to curtail what they see as major abuses before the more vocal among the playerbase can say: "Why did it take you so long to get to curtailing this?" EVERY post I14 patch has added restrictions to the MA - They have removed maps (my first Arc went invalid due to this; and I have had to chose another map that I honestly don't think works as well as my original choice did, and my Arc IS NOT a farm - in fact, I've received nothing but positive comments on my arc's plot; and it's noew back up); tightened the MA's text validation and outright stated it was to stop things players were doing by 'hand-editing' arc files in a test editor, etc.
Thus, I don't think anyone can claim that from day one of I14's live release, the Devs have been leaving the MA alone; they've CONSTANTLY been fixing exploits they see as harmful/abusive.
But again, you'll NEVER see a hard or specific definition of a 'Farm mission' from the Devs, because once they do that, all the farm creators will make missions with 'farm -1' number of objectives and say "I'm within your rules :P"
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes we can. Regardless of what past abuses may have occurred, retroactive punishment for a previously 'legal' action is frowned upon universally, be it in real life or simply a game.
[/ QUOTE ]
For some definitions of "legal" action. It was always clear that getting a level 50 in 6 hours cannot possibly have been the intent of developers with the track record of COH developers.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
[ QUOTE ]
I told you so.
[/ QUOTE ]
The bosses are a bit obscene right now. If you don't give them a secondary that requires constantly reactivating abilities with decent activation times (Radiation) and a weapon with redraw, they will absolutely tear through anything that isn't IOed out the butt or isn't incredibly controlled in some way.
I guess it's a good thing I haven't built that story with all the ambushes containing katana/SR Lieutenants + bosses then. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes we can. Regardless of what past abuses may have occurred, retroactive punishment for a previously 'legal' action is frowned upon universally, be it in real life or simply a game.
[/ QUOTE ]
For some definitions of "legal" action. It was always clear that getting a level 50 in 6 hours cannot possibly have been the intent of developers with the track record of COH developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
If punishment were meted out based on assumption of "intent" rather than actual law, you would have a case here. As it stands, there were no rules against this previously nor were there any mechanisms in place to prevent it. Therefore, I put forth that it was 'legal'. In addition, farming has existed for years without punishment. so to suddenly point out a specific type of farming which will receive retroactive punishment seems extremely unfair.
This is not a signature.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes we can. Regardless of what past abuses may have occurred, retroactive punishment for a previously 'legal' action is frowned upon universally, be it in real life or simply a game.
[/ QUOTE ]
For some definitions of "legal" action. It was always clear that getting a level 50 in 6 hours cannot possibly have been the intent of developers with the track record of COH developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where does "legal" come into play here? Is someone going to sue Paragon Studios cos they couldn't level their character in a day? There is no "legal". It's simple. Paragon Studios owns the game, and their parent company NCSoft runs it. They can make whatever arbitrary rules they like, because it's THEIR virtual universe we're playing in.
If you don't think their rules are fair, or unbiased, you can click "I Decline" on the EULA page, and simply not play.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes we can. Regardless of what past abuses may have occurred, retroactive punishment for a previously 'legal' action is frowned upon universally, be it in real life or simply a game.
[/ QUOTE ]
For some definitions of "legal" action. It was always clear that getting a level 50 in 6 hours cannot possibly have been the intent of developers with the track record of COH developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where does "legal" come into play here? Is someone going to sue Paragon Studios cos they couldn't level their character in a day? There is no "legal". It's simple. Paragon Studios owns the game, and their parent company NCSoft runs it. They can make whatever arbitrary rules they like, because it's THEIR virtual universe we're playing in.
If you don't think their rules are fair, or unbiased, you can click "I Decline" on the EULA page, and simply not play.
[/ QUOTE ]
The use of "legal" here refers to "adhering to the rules of the game as they were currently put forth". In other words, there were no rules against this specific behavior.
This is not a signature.
Which is exactly why they don't enumerate the rules. Technically, "illegal" is anything they've decided they want stopped. And in MA, they've ALWAYS said (release notes) they can pull arcs for any reason, and that they can do the same to any mission with "unintended benefits", which is exactly what PLing is, or its maker. Posi's not making new rules, he's just saying "the party's over" and indicating enforcement to come. If you want to discuss "legality" for your toon that went from 1-50 in a few hours, you're welcome to talk to them about it. Good freakin' luck. 
Dec out.
<QR>
It's all there in the EULA and it's all there in the language they added when they added the Mission Architect. Heck, it's all even in the announcements they made advertising the Mission Architect.
You exploit the system you pay the price. It's been there since day one. This is not news. What is news is that they said "We warned you, you didn't listen, here comes the punishment".
Kung Ru - 50++ MA/Regen Scrapper
Kalleesta - 50 Necro/Dark MM
Hidden Justice - 44 Kin/Psy Defender
Altaholic
I'm still failing to see what any of this has to do with "Hey guys, where can I find the patch notes?"
We have other threads for the unrelated discussions. Let this one go.
Global @Twoflower / MA Creator & Pro Indie Game Developer.
Mission Architect Works: DIY Laser Moonbase (Dev Choice!), An Internship in the Fine Art of Revenge (2009 MA Award Winner!) and many more! Plus Brand New Arcs for Issue 21!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes we can. Regardless of what past abuses may have occurred, retroactive punishment for a previously 'legal' action is frowned upon universally, be it in real life or simply a game.
[/ QUOTE ]
For some definitions of "legal" action. It was always clear that getting a level 50 in 6 hours cannot possibly have been the intent of developers with the track record of COH developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
If punishment were meted out based on assumption of "intent" rather than actual law, you would have a case here. As it stands, there were no rules against this previously nor were there any mechanisms in place to prevent it. Therefore, I put forth that it was 'legal'. In addition, farming has existed for years without punishment. so to suddenly point out a specific type of farming which will receive retroactive punishment seems extremely unfair.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the sort of thinking that the term "rules lawyer" was coined to describe.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
[ QUOTE ]
Okay yes it may have been unproffesional to a degree, but can you really blame him? The Devs (and many of the players as positron pointed out) are tired of the MA abuse. It is not being used for what they thought it should be used for, but instead a farmfest!
I think instead of a threatening post, positron could have told everyone what he does not want people to do with the system (which in all honesty they have done) and also tell the playerbase that a massive (?) change will be coming that will affect the AE system.
This is all just my opinion.
We did have it coming, the farming is disturbing. I cant stand not being able to level my character outside of AE. I can lvl them, but recruiting people for a team is well... hellish.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes we can. Regardless of what past abuses may have occurred, retroactive punishment for a previously 'legal' action is frowned upon universally, be it in real life or simply a game. What if, tomorrow, being a stalker in PvP was declared illegal and all stalkers that had previously PvP'd were given the same treatment? While admittedly this is a bit of a straw-man argument, the comparison is that a particular playstyle (and one chosen by a signification fraction of the customer base, at that) is being penalized in an unfair manner.
Mind you, I'm not arguing against new restrictions, but against retroactive punishment.
On another note, there should not exist any offense (especially with ban-level punishment) which is only discussed on the boards. A goodly number of players do not read the forums, and even many that do have not seen positron's post. In my humble opinion, it seems very unfair to players who may not have seen this (and thus, do not know better) to suffer punishment for the actions under debate. Unless the rules are made into a forced pop-up for all players in-game or added to the official ToC statement, players should not be held accountable for knowing and upholding aforementioned rules.
Finally, in closing, I would like to reiterate the point of another eloquent forumite above me who correctly stated that from a business point of view, this situation should be handled carefully. Although the City Of X series has not traditionally had a great deal of competition in its niche market, there are other (some would argue better, although this is a matter of opinion) products entering the same market which threaten to take away portions of the player base. A major faux pas such as that which has been threatened should be avoided in order to maintain what has been, up to this point, a very loyal following.
This is not a signature.