What is an exploit?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

It would also be against Paragons boast that players could level 1-50 entirely on player made content.

Perhaps the specific advantageous use of disadvantaged A.I? To a degree.*

But odd, I remember reading a US post from Castle saying that Ghost Widow could be soloed, because he "knows" her A.I. So didn't he exploit?

Fury

[ QUOTE ]
Did the devs intend players to have a stressful and difficult time levelling? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

did they intend to allow players to manipulate the rate at which they levelled? No.

Also calling experiencing content "stressful" is putting it harsly, ANY MMO includes investment of time for levelling and as such suggesting that playing an MMO should require under a days investment of time to get to the level cap, is bordering on a tad iffy...

Wow...Golden Girl...making a good suggestion...

...tis the apocalypse surely...

But yes GG that actually is a really smart idea, it would keep people moving about, using the AE buildings in different zones.

Sadly as Razor says, it'll take too much time to develop now for something that probably should have been in there in the first place but I beleive the reason it was left out is because they wanted people to be able to level exclusively using the MA without even touching normal content hence why there isn't such a restriction placed upon it.

As for what is an exploit (to keep the post on topic) it would be something, in my mind, that makes a relatively hard task completely absurdly easy. Levelling 1-50 isn't a hard task, it just takes time is all, there's no hard thing about it...hell if Turtle man (a challenge build who never visits the trainer) can level to...I think 35 was the last post on the blog...without once visiting the trainer using only brawl and both tier 1 powers...then levelling really isn't 'hard' just takes longer.

However the old kheldian bug (that never got out of test) or the Lady Grey chance of proc that let you oneshot..well...anything...and not reporting it, using it to gain much stoof to your advantage, that would be an exploit.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are when the devs outright come and TELL them they're doing something they did not intend them to do. If at that point you're still unwilling to admit it, then I think we're going to have another rather difficult discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acutally, I think it's the devs who define the spirit of the game, with both content and gameplay.
They're the ones who come up with the systems we use, and as they're the creators of the systems, they can say what the intention behind the system is.

And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

Back to OP again then:
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.

Anyone care to give it a try? The rest can start another thread, you know how to do that, don't you?

I have 2 examples instead of 3, on page 2 or 3 or 4.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the specific advantageous use of disadvantaged A.I? To a degree.*

But odd, I remember reading a US post from Castle saying that Ghost Widow could be soloed, because he "knows" her A.I. So didn't he exploit?

Fury

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I couldn't edit for some reason, just wanted someone to have a stab at countering the bolded. He is a dev' btw.

Fury

[ QUOTE ]
And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure people played CoX before farming existed for it lol sorry, had to be said, no offence intended, just being a cheeky monkey!

[ QUOTE ]
And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Still the Devs. Just they should probably consider changing it. Since CoH has lasted this long I'd say they're doing all right.

I'd love to see an issue where everyone disagreed. I'm not even sure such a thing could exist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure people played CoX before farming existed for it lol sorry, had to be said, no offence intended, just being a cheeky monkey!

[/ QUOTE ]

Farming has always existed for CoX.

How else would you get SO's back in the day?

[ QUOTE ]
And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both sides

No one's forced to play a game against their will

Like WoW - I don't like the look of it, which means that the spirit of the game there doesn't appeal to me - but that doesn't mean that the spirit of the game is wrong - 11 million seem to like it, after all

[ QUOTE ]
I have 2 examples instead of 3, on page 2 or 3 or 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I guess some people CAN'T start a new thread!

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.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure people played CoX before farming existed for it lol sorry, had to be said, no offence intended, just being a cheeky monkey!

[/ QUOTE ]

Farming has always existed for CoX.

How else would you get SO's back in the day?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think the devs intend to even try to stop the pre-I14 farming - it's just the MA stuff they want to go after, as it's damaging the MA system.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how successful would the game be if no players played it? If everyone disagreed with the devs who would be right then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both sides

No one's forced to play a game against their will

Like WoW - I don't like the look of it, which means that the spirit of the game there doesn't appeal to me - but that doesn't mean that the spirit of the game is wrong - 11 million seem to like it, after all

[/ QUOTE ]

if you read the WoW forums ever, you'd discover most people think the blizzard developers are greedy, for reasons that i won't go into because it's off topic. Ask me over PM if you're truly interested.

Farming has always existed. Farming has survived the devs previous attempts, and by god it will not die with this attempt. I see some fair points have been made. It's good to see the players have engaged in some intellectual disscussion.

If we could only dream the devs would take notice of us unimportant europeans.

Let's try one more time. Feel free to go back in this thread to see how some people gladly derail a good intent:

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.

[ QUOTE ]

If we could only dream the devs would take notice of us unimportant europeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did, perhaps - some people are blaming the Q and A session Positron had on the Euro Test server for the feedback about the anti-farming majority he mentioned

Hmm

Exploit example one:
The Lady Grey chance of Proc used for profit: This bug allowed you one shot anything, it dealed so much damage that it would kill Hami in one go. Using said proc to repeatedly solo Hami for the Hami-Os and not reporting it would be an exploit.

Exploit example 2:
Geometry jiggerypokery in PvP: Somehow finding a loophole in the terrain that allowed you to attack other players while they, because of the bug in the terrain, were unable to attack you back, this one is fairly obviously an exploit.

Non-exploit example
The Achilles heel proc bug: The achilles heel proc was bugged so that the additional -res NOT wear off on mobs even after the source had been stopped but could also be stacked if only for a very short window. This didn't allow you to one shot anything, the debuff only lasted 20 seconds anyway and stacking it was an extremely risky business since it required the power being toggled on and off to get the most benefit, if the proc was place in multiple attacks then yeah, you're relying on several sources to stack the proc which makes it fair. There was nothing you could do with this bug that made it so extreme as to be ludicrous, at most it was double debuff for about ten seconds.

That more to your liking Singstar?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If we could only dream the devs would take notice of us unimportant europeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did, perhaps - some people are blaming the Q and A session Positron had on the Euro Test server for the feedback about the anti-farming majority he mentioned

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't make it the case though

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If we could only dream the devs would take notice of us unimportant europeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did, perhaps - some people are blaming the Q and A session Positron had on the Euro Test server for the feedback about the anti-farming majority he mentioned

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't make it the case though

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless Positron actually denies it, then it'll always remain a possibility

Farming, like anything in life. Is fine in moderation, but once taken to extremes can cause potentially serious problems for everyone.

I think regular farming is overrated. Most people went for burst income and deleted/vendored the recipies/salvage that was not perceived as valuable.
Thus they didn't increase supply as much as they think they did except for specific items.
Dont get me wrong btw i said most.
My main concern is the retroactive punishment threat and what doors it will open if people just let it happen.

Another reason the devs should not be so draconic in the enforcement of their gaming philosophies.