Contact customer service to appeal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowNate
;_; ?!?! What the heck is wrong with you, my god, I have never been so confused in my life!
|
You can go through petitions after your changes have been made to get a GM to review it, IIRC.
Or something like that.
I have never had a mission banned, so I have no idea. o.O
Paragon Wiki: http://www.paragonwiki.com
City Info Terminal: http://cit.cohtitan.com
Mids Hero Designer: http://www.cohplanner.com
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dispari
I don't know why Dink thinks she's not as sexy as Jay was. In 5 posts she's already upstaged his entire career.
|
You have to petition customer service and ask a GM to review the ban.
But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius
List of Invention Guides
You can get the ban reviewed.
The nice thing is, if the ban is overturned, then the arc can never be banned or petitioned again as long as it remains unchanged.
Well it took forever, ungodly number of petitions, and about 10 emails. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Given that the last 3 resubmits the mission was unchanged, but now sometime yesterday while at work it is now unbanned. The same GM that called it a farm is the one that unabanned it. This whole thing was too much hastle for a "game".
If you're curious its mission arc 236903.
I'm sorry to hear it was a hassle for you but if you can look on the bright side, Now that the decision has been reversed that GM has flagged it as unbannable.
That means as long as you don't change anything, any further petitions against your arc will be ignored. It currently has the GM stamp of approval.
[ QUOTE ]
Well it took forever, ungodly number of petitions, and about 10 emails. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Given that the last 3 resubmits the mission was unchanged, but now sometime yesterday while at work it is now unbanned. The same GM that called it a farm is the one that unabanned it. This whole thing was too much hastle for a "game".
If you're curious its mission arc 236903.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the downside of putting the onus on players to "police" each other rather than the devs taking the responsibility of designing a system to prevent whatever they consider abusive in the first place.
One of many reasons I pretty much avoid MA completely.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it took forever, ungodly number of petitions, and about 10 emails. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Given that the last 3 resubmits the mission was unchanged, but now sometime yesterday while at work it is now unbanned. The same GM that called it a farm is the one that unabanned it. This whole thing was too much hastle for a "game".
If you're curious its mission arc 236903.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the downside of putting the onus on players to "police" each other rather than the devs taking the responsibility of designing a system to prevent whatever they consider abusive in the first place.
One of many reasons I pretty much avoid MA completely.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes, because it's completely possible to give players some actual creative leeway *and* mechanically bar all farms, etc. [/sarcasm]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it took forever, ungodly number of petitions, and about 10 emails. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Given that the last 3 resubmits the mission was unchanged, but now sometime yesterday while at work it is now unbanned. The same GM that called it a farm is the one that unabanned it. This whole thing was too much hastle for a "game".
If you're curious its mission arc 236903.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the downside of putting the onus on players to "police" each other rather than the devs taking the responsibility of designing a system to prevent whatever they consider abusive in the first place.
One of many reasons I pretty much avoid MA completely.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes, because it's completely possible to give players some actual creative leeway *and* mechanically bar all farms, etc. [/sarcasm]
[/ QUOTE ]
Next time try reading something before engaging the sarcasm... You will note I never said anything about preventing "all farms". I said that designing and implementing a system that prevents what the devs consider abusive behavior would be much more effective than relying on players policing themselves. That is not in any way unrealistic, and it is what they SHOULD have done before releasing MA.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well it took forever, ungodly number of petitions, and about 10 emails. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Given that the last 3 resubmits the mission was unchanged, but now sometime yesterday while at work it is now unbanned. The same GM that called it a farm is the one that unabanned it. This whole thing was too much hastle for a "game".
If you're curious its mission arc 236903.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the downside of putting the onus on players to "police" each other rather than the devs taking the responsibility of designing a system to prevent whatever they consider abusive in the first place.
One of many reasons I pretty much avoid MA completely.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes, because it's completely possible to give players some actual creative leeway *and* mechanically bar all farms, etc. [/sarcasm]
[/ QUOTE ]
Next time try reading something before engaging the sarcasm... You will note I never said anything about preventing "all farms". I said that designing and implementing a system that prevents what the devs consider abusive behavior would be much more effective than relying on players policing themselves. That is not in any way unrealistic, and it is what they SHOULD have done before releasing MA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Guess what? While they won't go and ban the player, the mission spoken of was banned due to being a farm - because it looks like the developers consider farms to be an abuse of the Mission Archetiect! So while you didn't say all farms, you did imply it (Or you have no idea what you are talking about).
The Developers do want to give the story tellers some creative room - thus all the customization options. *That* is how they developers want it to be. The only way to keep that would serious require some kind of AI to scan the missions and either deny or flag for human review automatically - and frankly a AI capable of doing a good job of that without false positives (or missing crazy amounts of true positives) out the wazzu probably 20 years out minimum.
Either that, or a Mad Libs style mission generator - Fill in the Blanks Only.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
[ QUOTE ]
The Developers do want to give the story tellers some creative room - thus all the customization options. *That* is how they developers want it to be. The only way to keep that would serious require some kind of AI to scan the missions and either deny or flag for human review automatically - and frankly a AI capable of doing a good job of that without false positives (or missing crazy amounts of true positives) out the wazzu would be SkyNet, in which case we'd all be doomed, anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]Fixed because I'm bored and need amusement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Developers do want to give the story tellers some creative room - thus all the customization options. *That* is how they developers want it to be. The only way to keep that would serious require some kind of AI to scan the missions and either deny or flag for human review automatically - and frankly a AI capable of doing a good job of that without false positives (or missing crazy amounts of true positives) out the wazzu would be SkyNet, in which case we'd all be doomed, anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]Fixed because I'm bored and need amusement.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
[ QUOTE ]
I said that designing and implementing a system that prevents what the devs consider abusive behavior would be much more effective than relying on players policing themselves. That is not in any way unrealistic, and it is what they SHOULD have done before releasing MA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, actually, it is very unrealistic. You can design the system to stop some forms of abusive behavior (like how they removed prisoners from the system with the last update) but removing all of them is quite impossible. You've got to have human beings doing the policing. Unless you feel like hiring a staff of mission reviewers, having players do it is the only way to go.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said that designing and implementing a system that prevents what the devs consider abusive behavior would be much more effective than relying on players policing themselves. That is not in any way unrealistic, and it is what they SHOULD have done before releasing MA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, actually, it is very unrealistic. You can design the system to stop some forms of abusive behavior (like how they removed prisoners from the system with the last update) but removing all of them is quite impossible. You've got to have human beings doing the policing. Unless you feel like hiring a staff of mission reviewers, having players do it is the only way to go.
[/ QUOTE ]
That only depends on how realistic a definition of abusive behavior is used to begin with. Limit it to clearly defined criteria, and it is feasible. Try and include something that prevents any & all types of abusive behavior and it quickly crosses over into completely unrealistic.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said that designing and implementing a system that prevents what the devs consider abusive behavior would be much more effective than relying on players policing themselves. That is not in any way unrealistic, and it is what they SHOULD have done before releasing MA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, actually, it is very unrealistic. You can design the system to stop some forms of abusive behavior (like how they removed prisoners from the system with the last update) but removing all of them is quite impossible. You've got to have human beings doing the policing. Unless you feel like hiring a staff of mission reviewers, having players do it is the only way to go.
[/ QUOTE ]
That only depends on how realistic a definition of abusive behavior is used to begin with. Limit it to clearly defined criteria, and it is feasible. Try and include something that prevents any & all types of abusive behavior and it quickly crosses over into completely unrealistic.
[/ QUOTE ]The thing is, abuse of a game system is like pornography vs erotica/art - you know it when you see it. You cannot set down clear, specific, criteria (such as Positron's example of defining 4 levels in 30 minutes) without people abusing the criteria (making sure to take 31+ minutes to level four times. ) Which is why it is unrealistic to expect ridig guideline in the MA.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said that designing and implementing a system that prevents what the devs consider abusive behavior would be much more effective than relying on players policing themselves. That is not in any way unrealistic, and it is what they SHOULD have done before releasing MA.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, actually, it is very unrealistic. You can design the system to stop some forms of abusive behavior (like how they removed prisoners from the system with the last update) but removing all of them is quite impossible. You've got to have human beings doing the policing. Unless you feel like hiring a staff of mission reviewers, having players do it is the only way to go.
[/ QUOTE ]
That only depends on how realistic a definition of abusive behavior is used to begin with. Limit it to clearly defined criteria, and it is feasible. Try and include something that prevents any & all types of abusive behavior and it quickly crosses over into completely unrealistic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Limit it to clearly defined criteria, and the exploiters will find a way to subvert that criteria by any means.
[ QUOTE ]
That only depends on how realistic a definition of abusive behavior is used to begin with. Limit it to clearly defined criteria, and it is feasible.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is demonstrably false. For example:
"Be honest."
That is a clearly-defined rule. Enforcing it is not feasible in any system that allows all players to enter ratings, as it is not possible to verify the honesty of such a large and uncontrolled body of people. This is true irrespective of how constrained the ratings system is -- 5-point scale, 10-point scale, thumbs up/thumbs down...
Guaranteed legitimate ratings are possible only with guaranteed legitimate raters. The rating scale and input method are irrelevant.
MA is a prime example of "Idiot Proofing" Vs "Universe generating bigger idiots". Sort of.
It is simply unpractical for a small group of developers to out think 10000+ times the number of players. If there's a way to bend the rules of the system to take advantage, then given enough time and resources (players) the system will be taken advantage of. Once known, it will take a finite time to try with the limited resources they have to plug up those 'exploits' without significantly damaging the intended function of a system.
Unfortunately they were against a hard deadline for release to retailers. Now they may have been able to turn off MA until the holes they knew of were patched but then the major feature on the box wouldn't be true and that could cause all sorts of problems for retailers and reviews.
It's said that software isn't released, it escapes. Issue 14 was a prime example of idiom.
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
[ QUOTE ]
Now they may have been able to turn off MA until the holes they knew of were patched but then the major feature on the box wouldn't be true and that could cause all sorts of problems for retailers and reviews.
[/ QUOTE ]
And for those who are going to say "That's what they should have done!" - They did that once already. The Cathedral of Pain was a major feature of City of Villains/Issue 6. Nine issues later, it's still en absentia. And people are still upset about it.
@Roderick
heres an idea ill get screamed at for but lets make it so you cant use AE till lvl 10 that would make sure that ppl had a clue about that game and its keep those lowbies in the sewers were the belong.
I like that idea! ( of level restricted AE access)
But I would make it level 15, and access opened by a special mission like the cape and aura missions...
The Sly Bold Renardine - " I am Scraptastic!"
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, abuse of a game system is like pornography vs erotica/art - you know it when you see it.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that standard was proven to be ineffective in practice because it was so subjective and vague.
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot set down clear, specific, criteria (such as Positron's example of defining 4 levels in 30 minutes) without people abusing the criteria (making sure to take 31+ minutes to level four times. ) Which is why it is unrealistic to expect ridig guideline in the MA.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The players do not need to know what the dev's INTERNAL criteria are for egregious abusive behavior. In fact, to think that the devs don't already have a set of defined criteria, is rather naive. They are already implementing MA design changes to limit player's ability to abuse the system. This is what they should have done to begin with.
Having a system with clearly defined OBJECTIVE criteria in place to limit player abuse proactively will always be more desirable and effective than a reactive system that relies on SUBJECTIVE player reporting.
The devs are never going to reveal what the objective criteria are. As soon as they do, someone will be doing something that comes within a hairsbreadth from the line they're not supposed to cross, the complain "I wasn't doing anything wrong!" when the hammer comes down on them for violating the spirit of the rules.
[ QUOTE ]
The devs are never going to reveal what the objective criteria are. As soon as they do, someone will be doing something that comes within a hairsbreadth from the line they're not supposed to cross, the complain "I wasn't doing anything wrong!" when the hammer comes down on them for violating the spirit of the rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, without strictly spelling out the rules so that people can skirt them, people will complain that they're completely incapable of understanding how building a map called "FARM FROM 1-50 IN 20 MINUTES HERE!" is exploitative behavior, and rally for everyone to boycott the MA because the devs are unfairly banning people for no reason.
Or something like that, anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.
|
Can your mission ever get unbanned? It says you can modify and be resummited but do they unban them?
Seems heavy handed not to allow an appeal or an edit.