That's simply my vendetta personally, you can not possibly issue suspensions/bannings without an "iron-clad" policy, it doesn't make sense. It's simply going trigger-happy if you will, especially if it's left to all the dev's own opinions which will all vary across this implement.
Fury
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'
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)
we can move on to disscuss how to compromise the problem for those who want to level as quickly as possible, and those who for whatever reason, don't want them to.
[ QUOTE ]
That's simply my vendetta personally, you can not possibly issue suspensions/bannings without an "iron-clad" policy, it doesn't make sense. It's simply going trigger-happy if you will, especially if it's left to all the dev's own opinions which will all vary across this implement.
Fury
[/ QUOTE ]
But what if they lock 50s that were PLed within a certain timefame - say 1 through 50 in 24 hours or so, but don't actually give a definitive point on what is ok and what isn't - that'd leave the players to work it out themselves, and as there'd be no offical limit, they might start to be more cautious in how fast they tried to PL.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
[ QUOTE ]
I would personally like to thank especially Golden Girl and Razor for ruining another thread that started very well. TY for once again ruining something for the rest of us.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will carefully choose my statements here, for the purposes of this thread.
First off, despite the intentions of this thread, GG is right that the Devs ultimately decide whats fair and isn't. You accept the EULA when you login so there is little in the way of grounds to challenge their decision. The playerbase can post and flame all they like, but if the developers choose to crack down on unfair farming and power levelling, then so be it.
Now I state "unfair" as again my opinion is quite precise on this.
First off, and this comes up a lot, badge farming. Badge Farming whereby the selected targets and requirements for a badge are met by finding plentiful sources of the required enemy type, or statistic such as damage, in my opinion are NOT unfair, so long as they dont require the use of unintentional programming or disadvantage other players.
Anyone can farm damage badges by sitting near a CoT crystal or being sapped etc, because its availiable to anyone, offers no advantage over anyone else in terms of HOW its achieved either.
Running TF's repeatedly, so long as the mission requirements are met, again is acceptable as the playerbase is simply finding the most effective solution to legitimately defeat their opponents and meet the required objectives.
However, and this is where its grey, I would consider it an unfair advantage for a player to be able to access the STF as a level 1, and currently thats kind of whats happening. Early level players are being awared the kind of rewards intended for much higher levels, and again with little challenge.
Imagine how much the Malta would be lame if the gunslingers, sappers and engineers were all removed. They are quite dangerous opponents, whereas the Titans, Ops officers etc on their own are quite the pushover. The comm officer and other unfair manipulations of the system are the same thing, taking out a lot of the risk, but maintaining the reward. Now most would argue thats simply as I mentioned earlier, merely finding the most effective solution, however the core farmers that have got Posi stroking the Banhammer so interestingly are manipulating content to make it easier, rather than finding the most effective ways to overcome whats already there.
Personally I think the MA system was placed to tell great stories and its a fantastic system for exactly that, whilst we might not all agree with the devs ( I do as a matter of point but playing a bit of devils advocate here ) it IS something they are seeing as a problem and are considering taking steps to rectify.
Yes this wont eliminate farming altogether, farming was always in a soon as inventions were put it, and it IS a nessecary evil in my opinion to stabilise the market prices. However, farming of the type that is being looked at, at the moment has caused quite a stir as "mission teams" are being overrun by "farm teams" and that, in my opinion MUST be stopped.
In-game and now on Twitter @Tsumiju Zero "The Nightmare of Dra'Gon"
"The flow of battle can only be influenced, not by realtime tactics, but by strategy."
Proud resident of the Union EU Server.
B.A.F. Trial Guide
Now we are starting to reach a compromise. All we need now is input from the devs. if positron says levelling from 1-50 in a day is too fast, i'll level 1-50 in 2 days.
If he says 2 days is too fast,, i'll do it in 3 days. Positron's new policy will be satisfied, and i as a player will still be able to level as fast as i possibly can.
How about a simple system where the MA missions don't award a player XP every 5th level, until the next level is attained, but Inf is still earned, so you have to experience some "real" content if you do 5 consecutive levels in the MA system?
In-game and now on Twitter @Tsumiju Zero "The Nightmare of Dra'Gon"
"The flow of battle can only be influenced, not by realtime tactics, but by strategy."
Proud resident of the Union EU Server.
B.A.F. Trial Guide
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's simply my vendetta personally, you can not possibly issue suspensions/bannings without an "iron-clad" policy, it doesn't make sense. It's simply going trigger-happy if you will, especially if it's left to all the dev's own opinions which will all vary across this implement.
Fury
[/ QUOTE ]
But what if they lock 50s that were PLed within a certain timefame - say 1 through 50 in 24 hours or so, but don't actually give a definitive point on what is ok and what isn't - that'd leave the players to work it out themselves, and as there'd be no offical limit, they might start to be more cautious in how fast they tried to PL.
[/ QUOTE ]
Albeit that is a very good counter GG, I still won't be moved in that they have to release some sort of policy that we can adhere to. It's just coming across to me far too brash to simply say "Well, Hero 8678 has had 40/50 hours."
Dev' 1: That is PL.
Dev' 2: That is not PL.
Dev' 3: That is debatable.
Etc, I say 40/50 because that's the "grey area" some toons can efficiently go from 1-50 in normal gameplay unbelievably. And also in a moderate farmers time-scale. So therein lies my question, What's the policy? You can not rely on an opinion to decide bans/suspensions, it is their game but an opinion can not be the defense of a dev's choice to suspend/ban. Because then I can say well I did this that, SO'ed that, teamed that, TF'ed that, etc. And that's MY opinion countering his, albeit I'd probably be ousted anyway from the looks of it.
EDIT: Sorry if my offtopic TopicAuthor, tell me stop if I am.
Fury
What I consider an exploit?
Every single action you do to improve yourself in contrast with the intention of the game.
What I consider a punishable exploit is something else. The current misuse of the MA system to PL and farm influence/tickets etc is something that I deem worthy to be considered a punishable exploit.
I agree with your point that exploits that give players an unfair advantage over others need to be addressed, but farming simply doesn't do that.
However, i do understand the devs might see their game is becoming 'easy mode' when there is no risk:reward ratio. All i am saying is, the devs do NOT need to develop a system to punish players for farming when it is reasonabl (i.e, account locking, banning stories)
Farming badges, farming things that might allow players to acquire powers (such as demonic aura) would be unbalanced at low levels where they are generally not intended, and players those levels do not usually have such things.
Most farmers, do not farm in such a way that is harmful like this.
As for badge cartels and the like, i have never been badge farming so i can't comment on it.
That wasn't even nearly the reason I posted the OP in the beginning. The Com officers RAISED the question: What do we consider to be an exploit in this game.
That has NOTHING to do with the definition of farming, I even explicitly asked people to try to forget the words farming, PLing etc and think hard for themselves about their values and thoughts. Now that you're hopefully finished we might get back on topic, so I ask again:
In this game, what do you consider to be your definition of an "exploit"?
Post three things: Your definition, an example of how it would apply in-game and an example of how it would NOT apply.
I'll give an example:
I consider an exploit to be something the devs overlooked, or a bug, that a limted amount of users use to gain a statistical advantage.
Examples of this is getting under the floor to safely solo a GM, the arena confuse thingy, being able to get into the enemy hospital through some sort of glitch etc.
Examples where this does not apply is the TV mission or Dreck, or badge grinds because everyone that want(ed) to do them did them and it was common knowledge they could. Noone got a real advantage. Those where unbalances in the game, something for the devs to continually monitor and balance.
Borderline was probably the boat grind that gave easy rare loot. A lot of people knew about it and "abused" it, but it wasn't really, really common knowledge and a lot missed out on it, giving some an unfair advantage in loot -> possible inf etc even if that doesn't really matter in this game unless you pvp imho.
I consider this borderline part being the most interesting:
Unfair advantage: well, 8 fire/rad trollers have an unfair advantage, 8 ice/kin corrs at 50 will nuke every mob, a good team that knows the game has an unfair advantage. o where do you draw the line?
Razor, I don't think anyone is arguing that farming is an exploit. Obviously it's not, in and of itself. Even my post above indicates that if a farming team are earning at a rate approximately on a par with a peak-efficiency "normal" team (yes, even exceeding by a margin), then no one can say that they're doing anything wrong.
The problem is XP/Minute played, not how it is earned.
To be blunt about it, if your rate of XP/min exceeds a certain level, known only to the devs (at a rough guess, two standard deviations from the desired XP/min rate, so a computer can crunch the numbers for them - at least that's how I'd do it), then you are, to use a colloquialism, taking the p*ss. Expect action from the devs. We can argue the degree of that action 'til the cows come home, but it's pointless.
Farming is not an exploit. Utilising an unintended feature of something in the game to vastly (two standard deviations would mean that the bottom 97.8% of XP earning rate is within acceptable tolerances, btw) exceed the desired XP/min rate, on the other hand, is. If the only way to do that is by farming, then it makes sense to hit farming with the naughty-stick.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise 
; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
[ QUOTE ]
To me an exploit is using an automated bot, or getting under a map and killing things that cant target you.
Using what is legitimately available in the game, in my opinion, is not an exploit.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
especially when the devs say they saw it coming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VoodooGirl
[*]Watching out for the Spinning Disco Portal of D00M!*
|
So because my exp is exceeding (insert dev chosen value), i am violating the devs intended 'risk to reward' ratio. Because i am playing intelligently with the tools that are given to me, maximising my efficiency, i am at fault.
If the devs want risk:reward ratios, they should increase the difficulty of missions.
if you tried to play my created arch, 'Technological singularity' (not published) you would KNOW what i consider difficult.
When you have a mission created for a 2 man team that is still destroying 8 people at once, you KNOW there is a risk:reward ratio.
To be honest, this game challenges me only when i am low level and weak with few amounts of powers, yet i have to suffer this until i reach a reasonable level like 30.
Why should i play this 'game' if i feel it is a chore? Yes i agree everyone grinds to some degree, and it's not all fun, and levelling the conventional way CAN be fun.
But the devs still don't need to be so tyrannical about how they approach this problem.
how can you say what a exploit is when it can be classed as smart playing. everyone knows that shooting though the ground is an exploit, but it is also smart playing as if you was in a war you would try to find a place to hide and shoot anyone without getting hurt.
and also is hovering/fly an exploit or smart playing over melee type only units?
[ QUOTE ]
How about a simple system where the MA missions don't award a player XP every 5th level, until the next level is attained, but Inf is still earned, so you have to experience some "real" content if you do 5 consecutive levels in the MA system?
[/ QUOTE ]
Or blocks of 5 levels - you can get 5 levels max from MA missions, then no XP until you've gotten 5 levels from non-MA misisons.
That'd give you 25 levels max via the MA, but as you'd also need 25 non-MA levels, and they'd be increasingly high levels as you swiched between the 5 on/5off sequence, that'd funnel the players out of the starting zone AE buildings, and into the others.
For example, you do your first 5 levels in the Atlas MA, and then you need 5 normal levels next, so that'd move people into Kings Row or the Hollows.
Once they'd gotten their 5 normal levels there, they could return to the AE for their next 5, which could be back in Atlas, or in Kings Row, and as they progressed, they'd be less and less likely to return to the lower zone AE buildings, because it'd be easier for them just to use the AE buliding in whatever zone they'd been working on their latest 5 normal misison levels in.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me an exploit is using an automated bot, or getting under a map and killing things that cant target you.
Using what is legitimately available in the game, in my opinion, is not an exploit.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
especially when the devs say they saw it coming.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think Londoner is bang-on to a degree, that is how I would define it to an extent. The problem is exploits in this game will be specific, and therefore you can not generalise a simple "No..", It has to be a specific "No...";"No.." and "No... etc."
Fury
Good suggestion golden girl, but to be honest designing any system like that, much like the MA, takes time and money from the devs.
The devs are not willing to listen to our replies on the forums and make huge game changing decisions based on player feedback. We're european, so we have even less of a voice.
[ QUOTE ]
Or blocks of 5 levels - you can get 5 levels max from MA missions, then no XP until you've gotten 5 levels from non-MA misisons.
That'd give you 25 levels max via the MA, but as you'd also need 25 non-MA levels, and they'd be increasingly high levels as you swiched between the 5 on/5off sequence, that'd funnel the players out of the starting zone AE buildings, and into the others.
For example, you do your first 5 levels in the Atlas MA, and then you need 5 normal levels next, so that'd move people into Kings Row or the Hollows.
Once they'd gotten their 5 normal levels there, they could return to the AE for their next 5, which could be back in Atlas, or in Kings Row, and as they progressed, they'd be less and less likely to return to the lower zone AE buildings, because it'd be easier for them just to use the AE buliding in whatever zone they'd been working on their latest 5 normal misison levels in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nice idea actually, and who says Defiant and Union can't get along
In-game and now on Twitter @Tsumiju Zero "The Nightmare of Dra'Gon"
"The flow of battle can only be influenced, not by realtime tactics, but by strategy."
Proud resident of the Union EU Server.
B.A.F. Trial Guide
[ QUOTE ]
@fanservice, just because the devs say they didn't intend you to do it, does not constitute an exploit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. The devs did not intend for people to level using the maps they did. They expect farming, they do not expect maps specifically tailored to increase the efficiency of farming to ridiculous levels using a mob with tiny Hp and a large amount of Exp.
[ QUOTE ]
An exploit is avulnerability in game mechanics or code that gives players an advantage over other players that negatively impacts their gameplay. Levelling does not do this.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's cheating the spirit of the game through some loophole or unforeseen flaw. Players hurt or not its still an exploit to do it. (And players are hurt, because currently WW is totally screw loopy on pricing due to a flooding of rewards and inf from those simple farming mishes. Good luck getting an epic set now >.>
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about a simple system where the MA missions don't award a player XP every 5th level, until the next level is attained, but Inf is still earned, so you have to experience some "real" content if you do 5 consecutive levels in the MA system?
[/ QUOTE ]
Or blocks of 5 levels - you can get 5 levels max from MA missions, then no XP until you've gotten 5 levels from non-MA misisons.
That'd give you 25 levels max via the MA, but as you'd also need 25 non-MA levels, and they'd be increasingly high levels as you swiched between the 5 on/5off sequence, that'd funnel the players out of the starting zone AE buildings, and into the others.
For example, you do your first 5 levels in the Atlas MA, and then you need 5 normal levels next, so that'd move people into Kings Row or the Hollows.
Once they'd gotten their 5 normal levels there, they could return to the AE for their next 5, which could be back in Atlas, or in Kings Row, and as they progressed, they'd be less and less likely to return to the lower zone AE buildings, because it'd be easier for them just to use the AE buliding in whatever zone they'd been working on their latest 5 normal misison levels in.
[/ QUOTE ]to me this sound like a nightmare i got to do these miss then these and back to them. what if i don't want to do this any more CoX stories as i know most of them or that i don't like what player come up with? to me thiis sounds tooo limited in choices and not the thing Ma was meant to be brought in for >.>
[ QUOTE ]
Good suggestion golden girl, but to be honest designing any system like that, much like the MA, takes time and money from the devs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know it would - another suggestion might be to make the MA like a trial account - after, say, level 20 - you get no more XP.
You'd get Inf and drops, but just no XP.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
In this game, what do you consider to be your definition of an "exploit"?
Post three things: Your definition, an example of how it would apply in-game and an example of how it would NOT apply.
You do not define the spirit of the game, neithe do the devs. 'Spirit of the game' is a subjective concept and based on your experiences you may define it differently.
And just because players are using a concept that was purposely designed in the game 'the concept of levelling' if they decide to maximise their output, they are not doing ANYTHING the devs did not intend them to do.
Did the devs intend players to have a stressful and difficult time levelling? No.
Anything that can be done without breaking mobs A.I I say isn't an exploit.
Otherwise we'd be open to stuff like breaking Roms line of sight so he doesn't rez multiple times, an exploit rather than a tactic.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
[ QUOTE ]
I think your curiosity is valid Singstar, but I simply await a description by the devs' to be honest. Briefly I think if for example Rikti comm officers is exploitative, then all farming is exploitative which is royally screwed and incredibly hypocritical, i.e pinning the fault on us when it theirs truly. Again, regards my opinion.
I really think they're vagueness is impeccable at times.
Fury
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure they'll give a totally firm rule of what is and what isn't ok - it'd just lead to people farming just within the limit set by the devs.
Like if they said a 50 in under 3 days was too much, people would just farm to 49.99, then do the last bit after 72 hours and 1 minute
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork