[Dev Update] Exploits and Bans – 10 January 2008 - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

13 Jan 2008 at 11:06 - 1641

Quote:

Originally Posted by leprekan

The person that was the original ferry for me was said to have been the original. Annoying person yes .. hacker? LOL. No offense to him but gifted in code does not spring to mind when thinking of him. When the dust settles it will prove to be a generic guild hall ferry.

You know, you'd be surprised to know that a few years ago, 75% of people spreading viruses on the net were kids, called "script kiddies", who used a simple recipe to get viruses (website where you fill in a short form to indicate what virus you want).

My point being: you don't need to be technically skilled to "hack into" something, simply copy the hacking method (then from the server side it's impossible to say whether you are voluntarily trying to find your way to the hack or simply copying the method). And whether you can then be called a hacker or not is a totally moot point. Legally you're still liable.

Anyway, I'm intrigued by how my theory is consistent with Anet's en masse ban reaction. I doubt that Anet is stupid to lie about this thing (I don't believe those that claimed this in this thread, banned people can get very angry, I even believe that some have created GWG accounts only to post wrong information on this thread... this is what is REALLY called defamation).

leprekan

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posers and Wannabes [nubs]

W/E

13 Jan 2008 at 11:08 - 1642

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

You cannot defend the position of "exploiter" in this case. With the thousands of hours you and others have in the game, it should have been clear that something fishy was going on. So may I ask what you're trying to achieve here?

Uh .. actually we can. Law books are written based upon it.

Anet had a 32 month track record showing use of a ferry was not a permaban offense.

Same thing 116 others are .. why was this a permaban when it was a ferry like ALL the other "exploits". No more "fishy" than the last thousand guild hall ferrys to places.

If you cannot grasp why we are saying wtf when THOUSANDS did the same ferry to Duncan without a permaban .. then I can't help you.

Oblivion Odyssey

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jun 2006

King Of Slaying [Leader]

W/Mo

13 Jan 2008 at 11:10 - 1643

what i really want to know is how many people who got banned were using their main account for this. if they were using alt accounts, as im sure many were, then they obviously knew something was awry and were prepared for a ban. unfortuantly by the nature of the banning its going to hit the few people who truly were innocent worst (their main accounts, didnt transfer items to other accounts etc). I wonder how long anet will go to get all the accounts of those involved.

Naughty Zoot

Pre-Searing Cadet

Join Date: Nov 2005

13 Jan 2008 at 11:12 - 1644

Quote:

Originally Posted by leprekan

As was the ferry to Duncan the second the Ferry left the zone it was a bug being exploited. Those in Duncan were blatantly exploiting a place they were not supposed to be in yet. Feel free to show me the list of permabans from this.

Those of you stating this does not apply are full of it. If Anet has shown over the course of 32 months that a ferry is not a ban offense. It is MORE than reasonable for people to assume this would not have been as well. Said it before and still applies .. many passing judgement on this are guilty of taking a ferry some place before this. How quickly the tunes would change if they decided to go even deeper into server logs to Duncan and ban for that.

Although you are right to point out the similarities between the Duncan 'exploit' and the Mallyx 'exploit' (in terms of the exploit being a 'ferry' exploit), there is one difference, which, in my opinion, is significant in this case. That is, the way in which the ferry works (I haven't read all of the threads, so I may have missed some of your earlier comments).

As far as I understand it, the Duncan exploit involved skipping the lesser dungeons and going straight to Duncan, if one person in the party had previously completed these lesser dungeons. The process involved assembling a party at Umbrol Grotto (a known outpost on the world map), and making your way to the Slaver's Exile dungeons across Verdant Cascades.

The Mallyx exploit, on the other hand, involved, as you state in a previous post, typing /resign, pressing [G] to enter a Guild Hall, and then making your way to the 'hidden' outpost, from where you then proceeded to kill Mallyx. This should have set off the proverbial alarm bells. Which other ferry trip, which involves an 'elite' area, involves such a convoluted procedure?

(I note that the Consulate Docks ferry which also involved a convoluted Guild Hall exploit (it's described on the GW wiki) has been fixed, while the ferry which merely involves one person having completed a task and entering from a known outpost (Kamadan) remains in the game.)

Phaern Majes

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Sep 2005

Anywhere but up

The Panserbjorne [ROAR]

R/Mo

13 Jan 2008 at 11:13 - 1645

Quote:

Originally Posted by leprekan

why was this a permaban when it was a ferry like ALL the other "exploits". No more "fishy" than the last thousand guild hall ferrys to places.

If you cannot grasp why we are saying wtf when THOUSANDS did the same ferry to Duncan without a permaban .. then I can't help you.

Because all the thousands of ferries before weren't to hidden/restricted outposts. If you really doubt that the original person had to hack to get to it, then please explain to me how you would get to it without hacking? Get to it the first time no ferry. Because the original person to find it sure as hell didn't get ferried there. As there would of been no one to ferry them.

All the previous ferries (Deep, Duncan, etc) were to places that you could get to legit if you wanted to take the time to do it. So while you actually got to a place you hadn't reached YET, you weren't in a place that weren't supposed to reach EVER.

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

13 Jan 2008 at 11:17 - 1646

Quote:

Originally Posted by leprekan

Uh .. actually we can. Law books are written based upon it.

Anet had a 32 month track record showing use of a ferry was not a permaban offense.

Same thing 116 others are .. why was this a permaban when it was a ferry like ALL the other "exploits". No more "fishy" than the last thousand guild hall ferrys to places.

If you cannot grasp why we are saying wtf when THOUSANDS did the same ferry to Duncan without a permaban .. then I can't help you.

You misread my point: you cannot defend it from a moral standpoint, you surely can from a legal point of view (a point that was mentioned before and I highly doubt that you could win; I seem to remember the case of someone trying to sue Blizzard on something similar and being unable to). The two are (unfortunately) very different and this forum is a good expression of that.

Exploiters cannot ask for more bans in order to call for a "higher justice". The argument that "we got banned because ferrying so everyone ferrying should be banned too" does not apply if, like I said before, there's a case of serious hacking involved (either directly or not). I'm not sure if we'll be able to get to the bottom of this thing (server-side info is extremely sensitive information for Anet; if I were a competitor I'd be looking at that with extreme interest).

No offense, but if you want to show us how things should be done, you'd have to show the example by behaving the way you want to see people behave. And stop right now assuming that everyone has used ferrying and such immoral feats (I'm saying that the feats are immoral, not necessarily the people as this is judging a person against judging a situation), because you're dead wrong. Of course, discussing moral is opening a can of worms because people will automatically disagree and invoke their freedom and right to do things differently.

Turtle222

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Oct 2007

:D:D

D/W

13 Jan 2008 at 11:18 - 1647

This is a touchy subject...but everytime i come across something that seems either dodgy or breaking the EULA, one should just stay out of it. Anet are trying to do their best to rectify any mistaken bans. However they shouldn't be blamed for being cautious

Aum

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 11:23 - 1648

It begs the question, if Anet considers ferrying to be illegal and a bannable offense, and has produced updates to rectify these situations, why has the EULA not been enforced in the past? I don't believe we can use the game's economic situation as an excuse imho. Are there different degrees of ferrying?

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 11:34 - 1649

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

Yes how did that person "stumble" into it. Thats what I want you to explain to me. How did the original person "find" the outpost without hacking. The first, orginal, no one there before to ferry them, numero uno, thats what I'm "on about" as you claim it was never hacked. I'm asking is there a way to reach this outpost without being ferried that doesn't involve hacking?

I don't have a 100% sure explanation for that, so I'm not gunna come up with a magical explanation from what I've experienced in-game or on this forum that would make sense to the flamers to join the band-wagon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Anet clearly say that you CAN'T "stumble" (I believe you didn't use this word by mistake) into this outpost. It was only used for development purposes (probably to experiment with the difficulty of Mallyx without having to go through the 4 zones before) and could only be reached by hacking the client or partying with someone who did. Please read the 96 previous pages carefully.

And how is A-net 100% sure you can't 'stumble' here??? Because THEY haven't found a way to get there??? As I said, I'm unsure how to get there, but I'm positive someone out there knows how to without using a hack, and can explain this.

unienaule

I dunt even get "Retired"

Join Date: Aug 2005

Fifteen Over Fifty [Rare]

13 Jan 2008 at 11:45 - 1650

Oh hey look, 10 posts just vanished mysteriously.

Flaming people, even if you think you're right, is wrong. Use the report post button.

Furthermore, to clear up bad information by Fril Elstein, this was not a development outpost. IT IS USED BY THE GAME, RIGHT NOW, TO CHECK IF YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET IN TO MALLYX. IF IT WERE TO BE DELETED, MALLYX WOULD NOT WORK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

The existence of the outpost -- in hidden form -- is required to offer the Domain of Anguish. This was not a "test" and the outpost absolutely could not be "deleted when we were finished with 'testing" or "saved on some storage device." So as directly as I can say it to those offering unfounded opinions: Deleting the outpost disables the entire Domain of Anguish mission.

Aum

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 11:48 - 1651

I have got to believe that Anet's database is "good enough" for a simple SQL query to be run to produce a list of accounts which accessed the hidden outpost in ascending date sequence.

If this be the case, they know exactly which account "hacked the dat file" or at least was the first account (upto 8) to access the hidden outpost. Furthermore they then know that all other accounts accessing the hidden outpost were either the ferryman or people being ferried (possibly).

This is simple stuff. It appears they do know this information. So it would appear they have decided this "breach of the EULA" is going to be enforced. The question is "why now?". And no one on this forum really knows. And I suggest Gaile doesn't know why either.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 11:58 - 1652

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undead Bloke

And maybe you should take into acount that the people who this is al about have not been given the information needed to prove/disprove their case.
I do not imply that al the people here should get this information, just the people involved, so their cases can be given a fairer judgement and they are not left in the dark.

You may not have implied that but the poster I responded to did. If the accused want information they should get ask for it in a submitted report and not scream at everyone and telling people to provide evidence or otherwise to "shutup". This is a forum not a courtroom. We can't possibly have evidence so we can only discuss things logically.

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

13 Jan 2008 at 11:59 - 1653

Quote:

Originally Posted by unienaule

Furthermore, to clear up bad information by Fril Elstein, this was not a development outpost. IT IS USED BY THE GAME, RIGHT NOW, TO CHECK IF YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET IN TO MALLYX. IF IT WERE TO BE DELETED, MALLYX WOULD NOT WORK.

My bad, I made a mistaked and sticked to the original info that Gaile gave. I spent the last hours reading through th 90+ pages of this thread and this caused massive amount of confusion several times, and this was one of them.

I found interesting to remind everyone of Gaile's previous posts:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...36#post3533736

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I would like to settle a question that some have raised. Was a hack involved in this exploit? Yes. If it "wasn't an exploit," or "was a simple ferrying maneuver," then perhaps one of you innocent travelers can explain that to me via PM? For the way I understand it, and I've just spent time with the content programming team to confirm, you get to the outpost by hacking the client, or by using the exploit gained through the client hack. I just watched a few programmers use every trick in the book, including Guild Halls and other things, to try to end up at that hidden outpost (as a few players have claimed they did.) And the programmers could not make it happen.

You didn't get to the outpost from a crash, a server burp, a roll-back, a glitch with the Guild Hall, or a sacrifice to Grenth. So my point is, some of the banned players may not have done the actual hacking, but they certainly used the exploit that resulted from the hack, and they certainly were able to profit from it.

As someone on the team said, "They get a ferry -- usually having being told such access is 'top secret' and after being sworn to secrecy. They end up in a outpost that doesn't show on their map, that they've never seen before (even though they completed the mission), and that contains no NPCs. At some point, they have to realize that something isn't right, particularly since they've completed the mission and they know that getting the end reward involves doing a lot more than simply taking out Mallyx."

I am not going to speak in absolutes. But I am not going to see you lied to, either. If someone can disprove this, please let me know, because all of us believe this to be 100% true: Everything logical, and everything we've been able to establish points out that those who used the exploit benefited, directly or indirectly, from a game hack. And both exploits and hacks are against the User Agreement. Isn't it really that simple?

Elisa

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jan 2006

The Netherlands

Crystal Gladiators

W/Me

13 Jan 2008 at 11:59 - 1654

Cheating is a bannable offense.

Who the hell cares whether it was hacking or not? The EULA YOU GUYS SIGNED!!! was broken. It states a permanent ban would be issued upon breaking it. You cheated for your own selfish gain and got caught. Boohoohoo, bye!

Aiden Arcana

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Nov 2006

Germany

Eazy Bake Oven [loli]

Mo/E

13 Jan 2008 at 12:03 - 1655

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisa

Cheating is a bannable offense.

Who the hell cares whether it was hacking or not? The EULA YOU GUYS SIGNED!!! was broken. It states a permanent ban would be issued upon breaking it. You cheated for your own selfish gain and got caught. Boohoohoo, bye!

Okay, let me see this SIGNATURE. I really don't remember signing anything, and if i didn't sign it would i get my money back? No. Unlike WoW, Anet doesn't give money back for not agreeing with the EULA, i see no choice in the matter for us.

Elisa

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jan 2006

The Netherlands

Crystal Gladiators

W/Me

13 Jan 2008 at 12:05 - 1656

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

Okay, let me see this SIGNATURE. I really don't remember signing anything, and if i didn't sign it would i get my money back? No. Unlike WoW, Anet doesn't give money back for not agreeing with the EULA, i see no choice in the matter for us.

Yup! You definitely signed the EULA. Your own fault if you didn't read it.

"I hereby accept blabla and face the consequences stated in blabla"

And you hit "Accept".

Aum

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 12:15 - 1657

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

... And both exploits and hacks are against the User Agreement. Isn't it really that simple?

It is that simple. As a corporation that supports the GW community and desires to protect it, is it not fair that the community ask "Why are you enforcing the EULA in this case and not others which also allowed users, many more users, to impact the economy in a negative fashion? For it appears that 'similar software defects' were removed with software updates and no one was banned". Thank you.

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 12:18 - 1658

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I don't think you understand security as you should. You don't disclose this information in the clear, or at least you try to avoid. A generation of script kiddies has learnt to have "fun" at the expense of others this way, and it would be a terrible mistake to believe that this can help the community (unless the game was riddled with bugs and Anet would show no commitment to fix them, but this is not the case).

Would you want that all the newspapers show how to make the shoe-bomber bomb? Should people know how to kill someone by putting pressure on the right place?

I think that if it will prove that the innocent are in fact guilty, some evidence of its existence MUST be given to PROVE that they are in fact, guilty.

I don't expect to see a method of how to hack into the game client. I don't think A-net is stupid.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 12:19 - 1659

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

What i was getting at was did i really have a CHOICE in the matter? No, either i say yes and play. Or say no and lose $50.

And you expected to buy a game where they give people free reign of hacking, cheating, exploiting, etc etc? Come on.

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

13 Jan 2008 at 12:26 - 1660

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeesuss89

I think that if it will prove that the innocent are in fact guilty, some evidence of its existence MUST be given to PROVE that they are in fact, guilty.

And how would they technically proove that a client was hacked? They control servers and know exactly what the client-server protocol is, so they can guess that the client was hacked from the packets received, but to have a proof (as you call it) they would have to get into the hacked client computer, which is something that they cannot do. I believe that they wouldn't inform us of these suspicions on the public place without strong evidence, which they don't have to show. On the other hand, banned people can now try to harm their business because these guys have nothing to loose (except their reputation, but thay could possibly use newly-created nicknames to avoid that) and may get their "revenge" (I'm not saying it's actually the case, I'm simply pointing to the fact that theories can go very far and spread the doubt everywhere).

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

13 Jan 2008 at 12:30 - 1661

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Zin

then the 50 for prophecies to get that special skill for ur ranger, and 50 more for eotn cuz we want that norn armor, and 50 more for factions cuz AB is amazing

Money does not buy you the right to cheat.

Of course you'll disagree that you're cheating, but that's not the point because at the moment when you signed the EULA you did agree with Anet's specification and enforcement of the game policy.

Creeping Carl

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: May 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 12:31 - 1662

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

Well it IS the dev team to Diablo 2.

That's a good point.

But did you really honestly think this game was going to allow that sort of rampant cheating? Maybe do some research first before buying a game if your complaint is that you don't like signing an EULA in an online game. I really can't think of an MMO that doesnt have some sort of EULA.

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 12:34 - 1663

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

And how would they technically proove that a client was hacked? They control servers and know exactly what the client-server protocol is, so they can guess that the client was hacked from the packets received, but to have a proof (as you call it) they would have to get into the hacked client computer, which is something that they cannot do. I believe that they wouldn't inform us of these suspicions on the public place without strong evidence, which they don't have to show. On the other hand, banned people can now try to harm their business because these guys have nothing to loose (except their reputation, but thay could possibly use newly-created nicknames to avoid that) and may get their "revenge" (I'm not saying it's actually the case, I'm simply pointing to the fact that theories can go very far and spread the doubt everywhere).

I'm sure there would be a way to prove this, and I am sure that some form of hacker has been charged before WITH EVIDENCE BEING PROVIDED.

I just want to play the game again. Is that too much to ask??? Apparently it is, as 117 of us are labelled 'hacks' without being proved to be such.

Aiden Arcana

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Nov 2006

Germany

Eazy Bake Oven [loli]

Mo/E

13 Jan 2008 at 12:37 - 1664

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elisa

Yes, upon disagreeing you could've, in fact, contacted support for a refund.

Unfortuantly thats not the case, PC Gamer magazine actually did a test and they found one of the few TO refund people was WoW.

FeroxC

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

EOA

P/W

13 Jan 2008 at 12:45 - 1665

Dont worry i think they got plenty of proof, and it probably looks like this:

IP-------Zone---------Data-------Time--------Username
86.h4x---DebugMallyx--25/12/07--22:50-------user name
86.h4x---DebugMallyx--25/12/07--23:10-------user name
86.h4x---DebugMallyx--25/12/07--23:30-------user name
86.h4x---DebugMallyx--26/12/07--24:50-------user name

dracolord

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Mar 2006

none atm

13 Jan 2008 at 12:49 - 1666

This is for all of you who are asking for your accounts back... Anet will not give you it back no matter what because not only has gaile already said that this is their FINAL DECISION, but if you come back into the game with your millions of armbraces, the economy is probably going to crash... You might as well stop asking because as gaile said, THIS IS THEIR FINAL DECISION. She clearly stated that only those who took advantage of the exploit were banned, i personally know a few people who had been to the outpost, but did NOT exploit it and did NOT get banned

dracolord

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Mar 2006

none atm

13 Jan 2008 at 12:53 - 1667

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeesuss89

Oh gee, that's a great idea. I'll give the company more of my money so they can ban me.

And for all you people who have the EULA written on your forehead; does it not state in it that once banned you cannot acquire a second account???

They will only ban your second account if you do the same things you did with your first acount. They don't ban you for no reason, you exploited a bug using third party software (a hack) which had a major impact on the economy, and for that you are banned. Please read what gaile said

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 12:59 - 1668

Quote:

Originally Posted by dracolord

Well, if you sent a report ticket, at least read it, it says what they think on it. And if you haven't and you want your account back, send a support ticket, posting on a fansite won't help.

It doesn't say what the TEAM thinks. It says what an AUTOMATED RESPONSE thinks of it.

Please, go back to Ascalon and play while you can.

dracolord

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Mar 2006

none atm

13 Jan 2008 at 13:05 - 1669

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeesuss89

Uh, I did. A long time before you did.

And how many of Galie's posts have YOU read???

The team will be reviewing all of the tickets sent into them sometime soon in the future.

All we can do is wait.

Obviously, you havent read all the posts... Well, let me update you

Some of the 117 have already sent out support tickets and got replies. All of them have been told that it was in the best interest of the game and its community to leave their accounts banned.

Want to know why? Because you have been exploiting using a third party software, thats possibly one of the worst offences.

A majority of the people agree that you should be kept banned, and some even say that a perma ban isnt heavy enough.

That's what the people say, anyways posting on a fansite wont help stop a ban...

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:06 - 1670

Ok buddy. Give me a link and I'll see this for myself kthx.

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:08 - 1671

that's ok dude, say what you want.

Just quote Gaile or give me a link to back up your case kthx.

FeroxC

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

EOA

P/W

13 Jan 2008 at 13:15 - 1672

Face it guys.

In legit circles you hacked the game and and should be punished.
In hacker circles your a "skiddie", and suck.

Exploting this bug was a bad move all round

Fril Estelin

So Serious...

Join Date: Jan 2007

London

Nerfs Are [WHAK]

E/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:20 - 1673

Quote:

Originally Posted by FeroxC

Face it guys.

Stop fooling yourself: these 2 guys (like a few others before in this thread) will not face anything until people admit that these guys were not guilty of cheating and that Anet will stand publicly humiliated, giving them back their account.

Fortunately, one can simply step aside the e-world, and then reality checks will hit them back: they're not going to get their account back and I'm going to eat a nice hot panini in a few minutes.

Maturity FTW.

Oh and I feel so "important", wow, I'm the king of the e-world. And now for something completely different!

jezz

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Sep 2007

R/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:26 - 1674

Quote:

Originally Posted by dracolord

Obviously, you havent read all the posts... Well, let me update you

Some of the 117 have already sent out support tickets and got replies. All of them have been told that it was in the best interest of the game and its community to leave their accounts banned.

Want to know why? Because you have been exploiting using a third party software, thats possibly one of the worst offences.

A majority of the people agree that you should be kept banned, and some even say that a perma ban isnt heavy enough.

That's what the people say, anyways posting on a fansite wont help stop a ban...

just curious...
does anyone actually know what the "third party software" is(called)?

i doubt any of these guys will get there accounts back..
i guess players will think twice in future before taking advantage of this type of exploit/hack or whatever you want to call it.
for some its a very large loss for a small part in this exploit..but that is life i am afraid.

FeroxC

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Mar 2006

EOA

P/W

13 Jan 2008 at 13:35 - 1675

Quote:

Originally Posted by jezz

just curious...
does anyone actually know what the "third party software" is(called)?

i doubt any of these guys will get there accounts back..
i guess players will think twice in future before taking advantage of this type of exploit/hack or whatever you want to call it.
for some its a very large loss for a small part in this exploit..but that is life i am afraid.

Based on Pablos early post its a "packet editer", lets you edit what data is being sent by any software to a server.

I doubt theres a specific GW hacking program because i imagine anything that lets you edit another programs packets is going to be very difficult to write.

What ive gathered is that there only needs to be 1 original guy who uses the packet editer - he can then ferry people and the people that have been ferried can then ferry others etc. So everybody is exploiting the original guys hack.

Crom The Pale

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2006

Ageis Ascending

W/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:47 - 1676

Quote:

Originally Posted by leprekan

Uh .. actually we can. Law books are written based upon it.

Anet had a 32 month track record showing use of a ferry was not a permaban offense.

Same thing 116 others are .. why was this a permaban when it was a ferry like ALL the other "exploits". No more "fishy" than the last thousand guild hall ferrys to places.

If you cannot grasp why we are saying wtf when THOUSANDS did the same ferry to Duncan without a permaban .. then I can't help you.

The difference is that people that went to Duncan were accessing an area that is open to players and that they could get to legitimately if they completed the nessassary quests.

The 117 were accessing an area of the game that was not open to any players at any point regarless of how many quests were completed.

In most cases the 1000's of ferrys you would put in equal weight with the Mallyx ferrys is just not possible. These ferrys are more akin to runs, which Anet has no problems with.

Accessing a portion of the game soon than intended can NOT be equal to accessing a portion of the game that is never meant to be accessed at all.

jeesuss89

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jun 2007

Sydney, Australia

117

Me/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:54 - 1677

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The difference is that people that went to Duncan were accessing an area that is open to players and that they could get to legitimately if they completed the nessassary quests.

The 117 were accessing an area of the game that was not open to any players at any point regarless of how many quests were completed.

There is no difference at all. Except the fact some inexperienced players may have not understood that Mallyx is not repeatable after completion of the quest.

You still needed to complete the sub-dungeons before doing Duncan. Runners could run there without you having to complete these sub-dungeons. Now, if someone who had knowledge of Duncan, and very little knowledge of Mallyx, so little in fact that they had never completed an area in the Domain of Anguish, one would think that they would see no problem in this 'hidden outpost' as they would see much similarity to Duncan. Obviously those people have had to suffer those consequences because of their lack of knowledge of a MMORPG. Now who takes MMORPG's so serious they study as much of it as they can???

Crom The Pale

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Nov 2006

Ageis Ascending

W/

13 Jan 2008 at 13:54 - 1678

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aum

I believe you are mistaken. The Duncan 'exploit' only required 1 player to have completed all 4 quests.

Yes and the rest had to own GWEN, which means they could access Duncan if they chose to complete the quests. They were simply skipping ahead to an area they could legitimately access if they played the game.

This is not the same as entering a FORBIDEN zone that is never open to any player to legitamitly enter.

dracolord

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Mar 2006

none atm

13 Jan 2008 at 13:58 - 1679

All i have to say is that your greed got the best of you 117. There are a few that i have met that did not exploit this and instead asked about it. That's what you were supposed to do, and so i have no pity for you...

Aum

Ascalonian Squire

Join Date: Jul 2007

13 Jan 2008 at 14:02 - 1680

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Yes and the rest had to own GWEN, which means they could access Duncan if they chose to complete the quests. They were simply skipping ahead to an area they could legitimately access if they played the game.

This is not the same as entering a FORBIDEN zone that is never open to any player to legitamitly enter.

And I would suggest that once Anet saw what was happening they documented this as a BUG which is considered an EXPLOIT, because they developed a software update to correct it. And to follow through with this logic, once recognized, all users after that moment should have been considered in violation of the EULA and subsequently banned for repeated use of this 'EXPLOIT'.