[Dev Update] Exploits and Bans – 10 January 2008
FeroxC
Arwen the problem is you were ferried to a place opened up by a hack. A hacked location technically isn't a bug but Anet obviously considers you exploiting this as bad if not worse. They would probably be able to classify it as a bug if they wanted to anyway.
Davros Uitar
So to summarise :
Anet position - there was a hack that was exploited for personal gain and we have banned 117 people who tried to take undue advantage in the interest of fairness and the economy.
The 117 position - no one hacked that we know, we did it within game mechanics, we kept the secret close for nearly 6 months. Sure we made some money / armbraces out of it, but hey - isn't this really just like ferrying or the Duncan thing?
The GW community at large - you guys got what you deserved. You broke the rules and now we will tell you exactly what we think of you and unload. No it is not like the Duncan thing or the Guild Hall thing and we agree with Anet and their actions.
The GW community in minority - we think Anet was hasty - we want to see justice done and we hope that Anet shows treats poeple with due process and arrives at the truth.
The thread made the epic 100 pages, and now it deserves last rites and a decent burial. The last 10 pages in particular have developed into 2 camps closing their ears and shouting at the other side that they are more right than the other.
/signed for lock.
Anet position - there was a hack that was exploited for personal gain and we have banned 117 people who tried to take undue advantage in the interest of fairness and the economy.
The 117 position - no one hacked that we know, we did it within game mechanics, we kept the secret close for nearly 6 months. Sure we made some money / armbraces out of it, but hey - isn't this really just like ferrying or the Duncan thing?
The GW community at large - you guys got what you deserved. You broke the rules and now we will tell you exactly what we think of you and unload. No it is not like the Duncan thing or the Guild Hall thing and we agree with Anet and their actions.
The GW community in minority - we think Anet was hasty - we want to see justice done and we hope that Anet shows treats poeple with due process and arrives at the truth.
The thread made the epic 100 pages, and now it deserves last rites and a decent burial. The last 10 pages in particular have developed into 2 camps closing their ears and shouting at the other side that they are more right than the other.
/signed for lock.
Aiden Arcana
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mineria
Learn something about programming and bugs please.
And read what the EULA says about what to do when you discover such a bug, and what happens if you misuse it. Simple. |
dracolord
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crom The Pale
I would hate to be the one that actually had to make that call.
To be perfectly honest in my own personal opinion anyone that accessed the area more than once should be sanctioned. However as I have stated in a much earlier post Anet should have options other than perm bans at thier disposal. IF I had the power I would set it up as so... 2 visits to outpost, no fighting Mallyx = 72hour ban(slap on the wrist to let you know you did something wrong) visits to outpost + fighitng Mallyx 1-3 times = 72hour ban, remove all items from inventory/storage. ferrying others to outpost = 72 ban + deletion of chars on that account Fighting Mallyx 4+ = perm ban. Now many would dissagree, this is just my personal oppinion. |
Visit to the outpost without reporting it to ANet = 1 week ban
Visit to the outpost and reporting it to ANET = no punishment
Fighting mallyx any amount of times = perma ban
Selling things you got from mallyx = perma ban all accounts from your ip
'nuff said, this is a serious issue, if you want tormented items to end up like the dead sword, you should take this more seriously..
fenix
I'm pretty sure that everyone in the entire game knew that you can't just fight Mallyx without doing anything. So claiming that you 'didn't know' it was an exploit is the worst excuse. Just admit it. You saw an opportunity to make fast cash ferrying/farming, and decided to go for it considering that 'so many others were doing it'.
That is why there are 117 people banned. Not for being there once. Not even twice. But for farming it over and over, or ferrying people over and over. You're all as guilty as sin, regardless of your ignorance of the EULA.
That is why there are 117 people banned. Not for being there once. Not even twice. But for farming it over and over, or ferrying people over and over. You're all as guilty as sin, regardless of your ignorance of the EULA.
FeroxC
Jeesus - Well according to Anet it was more than once 
Looks like they can basically ban you at their discretion im afraid.
We realy should start reading these overly long notices before agreeing to them don't you think
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flubber
Seems clear enough to me Arwen.
14. TERMINATION (a) NC Interactive reserves the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement (including your Software license and your Account) immediately and without notice if you breach this Agreement or willfully infringe any third party intellectual property rights, or if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us, or upon game play, chat or any player activity whatsoever which is, in our sole discretion, inappropriate and/or in violation of the spirit of the Game(s) as described in the Rules of Conduct. Should NC Interactive decide to suspend or terminate this Agreement with a User under any circumstances, the User will lose access to your Account. (b) You agree that if the Service or your Account is suspended, terminated or cancelled for any reason or length of time, you are not entitled to any reimbursement or refund of any fees or unused access time. http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...-agreement.php -------------------------------------------------------------------------- it doesn't deal with specific probs that will arise, but this gives them power to deal with them when they do. |
We realy should start reading these overly long notices before agreeing to them don't you think
Mineria
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana
If this WAS the case, then were are the bans for the people who used the GH Exploit. Accoriding to your logic anyone who finds a bug and doesn't report it should be banned?? So when LA turned into Amnoon Oasis, anyone who didn't report it should be banned?? Please further explain your logicm It just doesn't make any sense.
|
If you find a bug and then exploit it over and over instead of reporting it, you deserve your ban, as you will see if you had been reading the EULA.
The DoA thing isn't just something you fall over without knowing that it is a bug.
Hence why Anet banned people for it.
But they still keep on posting explaining how total noob they are, and because of their noobiness they don't deserve the ban...
If they where so noob as they claim, they wouldn't have found a way to exploit this in the first place.
Jaythen Tyradel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dracolord
Well, if you're not going to buy a second account, stop whining!
|
Aera Lure
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gaile Gray
* No one was banned for visiting the hidden outpost once. No one was banned even for going there a few times.
* No one was banned for entering the mission, killing Mallyx, and taking the loot, even if they did that a few times. * In fact, the bar was set higher than a one-time or even few-time occurrence, as the Dev Update states, to avoid banning someone who was pulled there inadvertently or to avoid banning someone who might have thought he was helping by "testing" the exploit. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dracolord
I entirely disagree, it should more like this
Visit to the outpost without reporting it to ANet = 1 week ban Visit to the outpost and reporting it to ANET = no punishment Fighting mallyx any amount of times = perma ban Selling things you got from mallyx = perma ban all accounts from your ip |
Seriously, if the bar was set where Gaile describes, Anet was very, very lenient. Too lenient imho.
SirJackassIII
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FeroxC
Looks like they can basically ban you at their discretion im afraid.
We realy should start reading these overly long notices before agreeing to them don't you think |
EULA's should be read though, expecially if it's coming from EA, you don't really want another Battlefiel 2142.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeesuss89
So would I... But you gotta fight for what's right...
|
Pyro maniac
Like the people claiming everyone using an exploit should be banned haven't used one themselves
Bundle tank, ferry to docks, unconditional weapons,
I'm sure all of us have used at least one exploit
Bundle tank, ferry to docks, unconditional weapons,
I'm sure all of us have used at least one exploit
jeesuss89
I think that all us 117 can do is wait. Times heals all wounds, and I'm sure that the genuinely innocent get their accounts back so they can continue to enjoy Guild Wars. If indeed a hack is involved (which I for one highly doubt the likeliness of this) then I hope that the 'hacker' gets what is coming to them, and a-net, PlayNC and NCSoft revise all the affected accounts and determine who truly deserves to play online with the Guild Wars community once again.
Rambo'
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeesuss89
So do you think that anyone who was been in this outpost at all deserves a ban??? Even though it was MEANT to be forbidden and ended up in standard gameplay???
|
FYI:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gaile Gray
* No one was banned for visiting the hidden outpost once. No one was banned even for going there a few times.
* No one was banned for entering the mission, killing Mallyx, and taking the loot, even if they did that a few times. * In fact, the bar was set higher than a one-time or even few-time occurrence, as the Dev Update states, to avoid banning someone who was pulled there inadvertently or to avoid banning someone who might have thought he was helping by "testing" the exploit. |
Note: I'm reposting this as you seem to have ignored it from the previous page.
Aera Lure
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pyro maniac
Like the people claiming everyone using an exploit should be banned haven't used one themselves
Bundle tank, ferry to docks, unconditional weapons, I'm sure all of us have used at least one exploit |
Accessing an outpost not in the game itself, intended for testing, by finding it in the game client, so that one can easily get to a high end boss, is an entirely different matter. Just trying to defend that sort of activity and compare it to the others you mention makes your position dubious.
SirJackassIII
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arwen Granger
I think you missed my point. The fact that they wrapped the Rules of Conduct as a listed URL in the EULA makes the "Rules of Conduct" not enforcable, because when a reasonable person agrees to this "contract", one cannot expect him/her to actually read what's required to open up that URL page because you need to cut/paste that URL and open it in a browser before you can see its contents. My belief is that for an online contract to be enforcable, all the terms and conditions or annexes of the contract has to be viewable in one display or the missing parts are not recognised. I might be wrong but this is what I was told.
|
It's exactly like any other contract that might reference to additional paperwork next to the contract. IRL, you need to sign each paper to agree. Besides, I think the ingame EULA shows all the info directly and does not have any links, though I could be mistaking since It's been a while since I had to agree to it and read it...
But seriously, if you're taking this to court claiming you didn't read (parts of) the contract, the judge will laugh at you in your face. Anywhere in the world.
I honestly don't care what your beliefs might be in terms of contract law or what you've been told, but I'm going to place my money on ANet's legal departement that the EULA is perfectly fine and you can't do a thing about it.
jeesuss89
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rambo'
Will you read what has been posted by Gaile instead of just picking out parts of the argument to make yourself look better...
FYI: Care to elaborate on what you got up to jeesuss89? Note: I'm reposting this as you seem to have ignored it from the previous page. |
Its simple really. We are banned at the discretion of A-net. This outpost has been made available to us through normal gameplay and portrayed as a legitimate location. Even yourself. So to say that it wasn't meant to be there is BS, because obviously it is there for a reason.
Note: I really don't care what you think about me, because clearly you're the kind of person I don't need to associate with.
jeesuss89
I've read all of Gaile's posts FYI. What do you want to know exactly??? How many times I've been there??? 11+. I base this on how many gemsets I acquired, but I cannot tell you precisely how many times we failed. Maybe 3-4 I don't know, this was roughly 2 months ago.
FeroxC
The hackers going to be the very first guy on Anets log file.
But seriously considering youve entered 13 times ?, im not sure your odds of being unbanned are too good
But seriously considering youve entered 13 times ?, im not sure your odds of being unbanned are too good
SirJackassIII
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arwen Granger
http://www.djacobson.com/technology_...racts_0603.pdf, page 7, 4th paragraph under "Click Wrap Agreements".
|
Quote:
| The terms and conditions in a click-wrap agreement must be clear, easy to read and easily to view. It is recommended that a consumer not be allowed to complete a transaction without being forced to view them. If the terms are not clear or obvious enough then it may be extremely difficult to establish the existence of an agreement to those terms. |
Quote:
| (b) Amendments. NC Interactive may amend this Agreement or modify the Rules of Conduct at any time in its sole discretion on our web site via (a) the amended Agreement, currently at http://www.guildwars.com/support/legal/termsofuse.php or (b) the modified Rules of Conduct, currently at http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...sofconduct.php. Amendments to the Agreement and/or modifications to the Rules of Conduct will be effective immediately upon posting. When logging onto the Service (as defined below) you will be asked to confirm your acceptance to any such revised terms and conditions. You agree to check this Agreement and the Rules of Conduct periodically so you will be familiar with their content as amended or modified from time to time. If you do not agree to the revised terms and conditions, you should contact NC Interactive immediately to discuss closure of your Account (also defined below). |
jeesuss89
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FeroxC
The hackers going to be the very first guy on Anets log file.
But seriously considering youve entered 13 times ?, im not sure your odds of being unbanned are too good |
Rambo'
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeesuss89
I've read all of Gaile's posts FYI. What do you want to know exactly??? How many times I've been there??? 11+. I base this on how many gemsets I acquired, but I cannot tell you precisely how many times we failed. Maybe 3-4 I don't know, this was roughly 2 months ago.
|
Its clear you knew what you were doing and were doing so to personally gain.
Thats it for me, I'm out.
jeesuss89
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rambo'
If thats the case, then you don't have a leg to stand on in my opinion.
Its clear you knew what you were doing and were doing so to personally gain. Thats it for me, I'm out. |
Cya.
Aera Lure
Bottom line too is, at the end of the day, MMOs all run under one big rule: they can terminate a player's account at any time for any reason. Its a given, unfortunately, and we all sign on to that idea otherwise they wont let us play. Its true of course even for pay to play MMOs - we have no rights at all over our characters or accounts.
All of the discussion in this topic is very nice. Anet was very lenient imho and opened themselves up to conversation on the topic by themselves not following the golden rule to the letter and allowing some leniency and trying to explain it. There is no legal ground for a player to stand on. None. Even if this was a ban for which no one could find a plausible reason. I'd stop trying to look at it legally, unless you want first to try and revisit MMO's usage of EULAs and the language therein for future MMOs, not one you are currently playing and have already agreed to.
All of the discussion in this topic is very nice. Anet was very lenient imho and opened themselves up to conversation on the topic by themselves not following the golden rule to the letter and allowing some leniency and trying to explain it. There is no legal ground for a player to stand on. None. Even if this was a ban for which no one could find a plausible reason. I'd stop trying to look at it legally, unless you want first to try and revisit MMO's usage of EULAs and the language therein for future MMOs, not one you are currently playing and have already agreed to.
jeesuss89
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aera Lure
Bottom line too is, at the end of the day, MMOs all run under one big rule: they can terminate a player's account at any time for any reason. Its a given, unfortunately, and we all sign on to that idea otherwise they wont let us play. Its true of course even for pay to play MMOs - we have no rights at all over our characters or accounts.
All of the discussion in this topic is very nice. Anet was very lenient imho and opened themselves up to conversation on the topic by themselves not following the golden rule to the letter and allowing some leniency and trying to explain it. There is no legal ground for a player to stand on. None. Even if this was a ban for which no one could find a plausible reason. I'd stop trying to look at it legally, unless you want first to try and revisit MMO's usage of EULAs and the language therein for future MMOs, not one you are currently playing and have already agreed to. |
Messy
Wow had to catch up on the last 20 pages, and basically same thing: twist words, split hairs...
What I still don't get is how is it 1 trip to Mallyx involved 3 trips to the outpost. If I was invited to one of these trips, I would be invited to the Party leader's GH. From there we would go to the forbidden outpost when the party leader hit the "leave guild hall" button. I land in the outpost. 1 visit. Somebody clicks "enter mission". Once you are done... either because you killed Mallyx, or you got powend.... yo /resign and go back to post. I'm thinking this is where it gets tricky....
a) IF you went back in it would still be 1 visit= 1 attempt
b) IF you needed to go back to your GH to unload... then the 1 visit from after you resigned + 1 visit of going back there = 2 visits /1 attempt....
the PROBLEM is, if it was scenario B... WHY DID YOU GO BACK TO YOUR GH????
a) you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
b) you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
c) Maybe you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
d) ALL of the above.
either that... or you were a Ferry bringing people in there.
otherwise, the 3 visits per actual mission does not add up.
What I still don't get is how is it 1 trip to Mallyx involved 3 trips to the outpost. If I was invited to one of these trips, I would be invited to the Party leader's GH. From there we would go to the forbidden outpost when the party leader hit the "leave guild hall" button. I land in the outpost. 1 visit. Somebody clicks "enter mission". Once you are done... either because you killed Mallyx, or you got powend.... yo /resign and go back to post. I'm thinking this is where it gets tricky....
a) IF you went back in it would still be 1 visit= 1 attempt
b) IF you needed to go back to your GH to unload... then the 1 visit from after you resigned + 1 visit of going back there = 2 visits /1 attempt....
the PROBLEM is, if it was scenario B... WHY DID YOU GO BACK TO YOUR GH????
a) you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
b) you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
c) Maybe you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
d) ALL of the above.
either that... or you were a Ferry bringing people in there.
otherwise, the 3 visits per actual mission does not add up.
Commander Ryker
I'm reposting this to remind everyone of the rules.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Inde
Okay, my brain is about to explode. From the misinformation, the repeated questions that I can find on every 5 pages of this thread, and from those who just like to do +1 posts when they could bring a conversation to PM's. I'm not sure how much longer to persist with this thread. Despite having numerous people ask for it's closure, both mods and users, it's starting to go around in circles. Everything someone needs to know from Anet is on the first page of this thread.
Everything contained in this thread is being read, tested or explained by Anet as evidence from several posts from Gaile Gray. I understand the communities frustration and yes... from some of you, betrayal and outrage. But banging our heads to try to make the other side see our point is not doing anything but contributing to the over 500 deleted posts in this thread. Not to mention countless edits. That's 1 in every 4 posts being deleted. This is a massive amount of effort over the last several days to assure that the community has a voice. That you can express your displeasure, your acceptance or your support of what ArenaNet did. I wish that there could be some resolution for everyone... both banned, those that think it unfair, friends of those who were banned, those who have been hurt or ridiculed for this, or those simply striving to make the other side hear and understand their point of view. But there's no end to this in sight. I think all view points have been represented in this thread. I wish there were a better way to handle this, to let those who were banned get their stories and points to ArenaNet directly for consideration but that method has been provided whether you like the answer or not... go through support. The question of this being a hack or a bug or an oversight by Anet is not going to be resolved nor will it change ArenaNet's mind. They have seen the steps some of you have posted to contribute toward your ban or that of a friend. I have seen the arguements, the flames and the frustration. From this point forward this thread will become strictly monitored. Any one-liner... ANY ONE LINER... will be deleted. Anymore reference to this being a QQ thread will be deleted. Any reposting of what you said 30 pages ago, will be deleted. Any analogies will be deleted. Any insult/flame or flamebait will be deleted. Any post about lawsuits/libel/defamation will be deleted. These rules are subject to change. Try to stay on topic. Try to express your views by really posting and thinking of your responses. Stop the back-and-forth bickering and conversation mode. If we can continue with this thread in a resonable manner with an honest debate with the information we have then I'll keep it open. Any new stories from those who were banned who would like to come forward to express their viewpoint are welcome. We'll see how this goes. |
high priestess anya
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flubber
being there in and of itself IS the wrong doing. that is what some of you just don't seem to get the gist of. I'm surprised that you few are even getting the benefit of the doubt.
to the few that suggest that anet wipes the characters and hands out a temp ban.. the smart players already dumped the junk on their alts, or they used their alts to begin with. |
Aera Lure
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jeesuss89
Yes that is very true. I think that the point that the 117 is getting at here is that they want to access they're accounts back, even though we understand it is under A-net's discretion. All we want to do is play the game again, I don't believe that is too much to ask. I'm sure at least 116 more people would agree with me, even though your point is very valid.
|
Truly sorry you were wrapped up in all this. I'll say the same for any of the other 117. I have to be honest though, I dont really have sympathy for those who used it to any advantage. Its not for me to judge who among those 117 did, if any, or all, and therein lies the subjectivity of the topic, and the difficulties around which trying to keep it from a "one side vs the other" sort of affair.
I suppose the only thing I have to add to the topic outside of my reply to the legality issues argument, was that simply Gaile's reply outlining their detailing of where they set the ban bar seemed more than fair to me. Truly. Anyone who knows the value of Mallyx drops, knew something was wrong when partaking of the activity in discussion here, well and beyond any "normal" in game "exploit", hidden outpost and all, and I question anyone who'd continue to make use of it.
That said, I hope those that are innocent, if any, get their due. If the logs said you were there more than a few times and killed Mallyx a couple times, then you know if you're innocent or not. And so does Anet. Simple enough. I dont think there is any point at all in trying to either look at the so-called legality or to try and wordsmith one's way out of a ban. That part of the whole thing is pretty darned straightforward.
Beyond that, looking at an appeal of a permaban. Gaile laid the groundwork for about where the bar stands for appeals. If you feel you are under that bar, she leaves the door open for an appeal. If you are over the bar, she doesnt.
If its turned over to a court of public opinion, ie this topic, then I support Anet. As for an appeal of punishment? I have had a few friends in game permabanned for what seems to me less than this whole affair. I watched some of them retire and others get new accounts and are playing again now. Its harsh, but the permaban wasnt lifted for them, so I surely wouldnt "vote" to lift it for any of the 117 who demonstratably met that bar and got the ban.
Messy
Gaile said....
"We eliminated the exploit with a build today. We also conducted a detailed investigation into who accessed this exploit and other hidden outposts. As a result of this investigation, we permanently banned 117 players late Wednesday night, Pacific time, and we will ban more accounts as appropriate as we review additional logs gathered after the initial bans." HERE
and considering this....
it seems to me...
* maybe some of these 117 really got caught up in an exploit that had obviously been going on for a while, although... if you went in there more than 4 times....
* It sounds like they are going to go after the *other* 500, or 383. Personally, I hope they do. If you are going to ban people that abused this exploit, go after all of them. Once they are done reviewing these 117, If I were one of the remaining *unbanned visitors* I would be pretty restless.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT....
Don't buy, accept free gifts.... nothing that is GEM/ Mallyx related for the time being. It may be coming from one of these guys, and you might end up being accused of being an accessory.
"We eliminated the exploit with a build today. We also conducted a detailed investigation into who accessed this exploit and other hidden outposts. As a result of this investigation, we permanently banned 117 players late Wednesday night, Pacific time, and we will ban more accounts as appropriate as we review additional logs gathered after the initial bans." HERE
and considering this....
it seems to me...
* maybe some of these 117 really got caught up in an exploit that had obviously been going on for a while, although... if you went in there more than 4 times....
* It sounds like they are going to go after the *other* 500, or 383. Personally, I hope they do. If you are going to ban people that abused this exploit, go after all of them. Once they are done reviewing these 117, If I were one of the remaining *unbanned visitors* I would be pretty restless.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT....
Don't buy, accept free gifts.... nothing that is GEM/ Mallyx related for the time being. It may be coming from one of these guys, and you might end up being accused of being an accessory.
Aum
Philosophically, setting the bar at a specific number implies some hueristic being applied that says this number is equivalent to this much monetary gain and economic impact by a player.
If bans are blanket it doesn't matter. But if bans are based on some hueristic, which appears to be weighed heavily toward usage more than monetary gain, what of the player who made little or nothing off of this regardless of the number or runs?
Because someone who made the maximum number of runs under the hueristic could easily have pocketed 80k+ from gem sets and more from selling Mallyx weapons.
If bans are blanket it doesn't matter. But if bans are based on some hueristic, which appears to be weighed heavily toward usage more than monetary gain, what of the player who made little or nothing off of this regardless of the number or runs?
Because someone who made the maximum number of runs under the hueristic could easily have pocketed 80k+ from gem sets and more from selling Mallyx weapons.
high priestess anya
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana
If they have the proof, screw the general public, show the people it affects, not the people on their high horses with pitchforks ready to crucify us for a mere ferry bug.
|
but i will say this...although duncan exploit inst as proffitable it STILL COMES UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY and IS STILL THE SAME CRIME just lesser in seriousness. so taking that into account, people exploiting the duncan bug should recieve a minor penalty themsleves.
anyone who doesnt agree with my statement is surely here fishing for flame and to damn the condemned...
Aera Lure
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dont Mess WithMe
Gaile said....
"We eliminated the exploit with a build today. We also conducted a detailed investigation into who accessed this exploit and other hidden outposts. As a result of this investigation, we permanently banned 117 players late Wednesday night, Pacific time, and we will ban more accounts as appropriate as we review additional logs gathered after the initial bans." HERE and considering this.... it seems to me... * maybe some of these 117 really got caught up in an exploit that had obviously been going on for a while, although... if you went in there more than 4 times.... * It sounds like they are going to go after the *other* 500, or 383. Personally, I hope they do. If you are going to ban people that abused this exploit, go after all of them. Once they are done reviewing these 117, If I were one of the remaining *unbanned visitors* I would be pretty restless. FOOD FOR THOUGHT.... Don't buy, accept free gifts.... nothing that is GEM/ Mallyx related for the time being. It may be coming from one of these guys, and you might end up being accused of being an accessory. |
I too seriously hope they go after whoever and however many others were involved in regular infractions. I had no idea it had been going on THAT long, and so many people (the 500 quoted in that chat screen was just someone's guess I imagine - could be 250 or it could be 1000).
Antheus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dont Mess WithMe
and considering this....
|
We all know the only people who got unfairly banned are noobs who went to DoA for the first time and didn't know better.
Lies. Calamity. For horsemen of the apocalypse. Will the madness ever end.
Hear the voices of the innocent and ignorant.
Aera Lure
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aum
Philosophically, setting the bar at a specific number implies some hueristic being applied that says this number is equivalent to this much monetary gain and economic impact by a player.
If bans are blanket it doesn't matter. But if bans are based on some hueristic, which appears to be weighed heavily toward usage more than monetary gain, what of the player who made little or nothing off of this regardless of the number or runs? Because someone who made the maximum number of runs under the hueristic could easily have pocketed 80k+ from gem sets and more from selling Mallyx weapons. |
high priestess anya
qouting all people backing the ban:
regardless, this is a major violation of the eula
55 bot farm
duncan
dock ferry
LA & kaineng ferry botting
are all similar offenses but are not as serious. no punishment for these? ok i understand the work involved, but if you want to uphold the law then these are also violations but not as serious. im sure 99% of the people here have broke the EULA.... make your own conclusions
regardless, this is a major violation of the eula
55 bot farm
duncan
dock ferry
LA & kaineng ferry botting
are all similar offenses but are not as serious. no punishment for these? ok i understand the work involved, but if you want to uphold the law then these are also violations but not as serious. im sure 99% of the people here have broke the EULA.... make your own conclusions
gone
@ anya then you must also agree that even using the 'bug' makes you accountable for your actions, deserving a ban. in this case a perma-ban.
you can't pick and choose what you agree to in the eula.
you can't pick and choose what you agree to in the eula.
Aera Lure
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by high priestess anya
qouting all people backing the ban:
regardless, this is a major violation of the eula 55 bot farm duncan dock ferry LA & kaineng ferry botting are all similar offenses but are not as serious. no punishment for these? ok i understand the work involved, but if you want to uphold the law then these are also violations but not as serious. im sure 99% of the people here have broke the EULA.... make your own conclusions |
55 solo builds have been around in the game since day one, and have, of course, been nerfed. 55 bot farming is of course breaking the EULA, since botting is breaking the EULA, but the real issue here is Anet doesnt have the manpower to constantly fight it. Doesnt make it less of an offense, just makes it less policed. Note it also doesnt make anyone who used a 55 build to farm an exploiter or someone who has broken the EULA, so what is you point here, anyway?
Ferry botting. Same thing as above as regards 55 botting. You mention botting again. Yes, botting breaks the EULA and should be banned. Want to go to work at Anet for free and police it? Your point?
Duncan and ferrying without bots get added to a long list of things like the gear trick. Something that is simply in game and Anet can and could (and has in the past many times) released a build that removed the activity if they wished. Its called a mistake in or oversight in coding and rest assured, no game is without them.
Its QUITE a bit different to make use of the game client to open up a restricted area to manipulate and hidden outpost to take advantage of the drops of a high end boss for repeated gain, and high end gain at that. There is no relationship between this and the examples you cite.
Katakalysm
I know the guy who found this, and dragged all us in. I know what we did was wrong, but STRAIGHT permaban is weird, even from Anet.
high priestess anya
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aera Lure
Humbug. 99% of us breaking the EULA my ***.
55 solo builds have been around in the game since day one, and have, of course, been nerfed. 55 bot farming is of course breaking the EULA, since botting is breaking the EULA, but the real issue here is Anet doesnt have the manpower to constantly fight it. Doesnt make it less of an offense, just makes it less policed. Note it also doesnt make anyone who used a 55 build to farm an exploiter or someone who has broken the EULA, so what is you point here, anyway? Ferry botting. Same thing as above as regards 55 botting. You mention botting again. Yes, botting breaks the EULA and should be banned. Want to go to work at Anet for free and police it? Your point? Duncan and ferrying without bots get added to a long list of things like the gear trick. Something that is simply in game and Anet can and could (and has in the past many times) released a build that removed the activity if they wished. Its called a mistake in or oversight in coding and rest assured, no game is without them. Its QUITE a bit different to make use of the game client to open up a restricted area to manipulate and hidden outpost to take advantage of the drops of a high end boss for repeated gain, and high end gain at that. There is no relationship between this and the examples you cite. |
they cant punish one without the other...no matter the seriousness. if you do wrong you get punished to my knowledge...
ethics morals and the law all stand by what i say.
all of the "minor offenses" still are profiteeering and exploits. get off my back and let me help these guys
high priestess anya
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flubber
@ anya then you must also agree that even using the 'bug' makes you accountable for your actions, deserving a ban. in this case a perma-ban.
you can't pick and choose what you agree to in the eula. |
whatever punishment i get i am happy with, i have no plans to play gw again. all my friends where amongst the 117.
but if you want to pick at my case then scroll back a few pages to the meaning of "exploit".
to exploit is to gain something by doing something you shouldnt.key word there being gain.ok i went to the place, anet will judge me as they see fit. stop trying to boost your guru rank...