I would like to know also, why one exploit is lucky and the other one isnt lucky.
The distinction is simple. Players have no way to determine the drops from a lockbox. There was no course of action distinct from normal activity, nor any way to prove it was intentional. After all, when you open a lock box you are indeed supposed to get drops.
This however involved a deliberate set of actions with an end result they is obviously and explicitly unintentional - bypassing the weekly timer or otherwise circumventing the prerequisites.
In both cases they gave us Opportunity, but in the former they cannot prove intent (as we could plead ignorance of their drop rates). In the latter, the actions obviously bypassed clearly stated prerequisites, so engaging in that course of action demonstrates intent.
That latter also applied to the AH exploit. When you're buying something you're supposed to pay, not get paid. No one will believe anyone pleading ignorance about how purchasing things work. Therefore anyone who engaged in it is demonstrating intent to exploit.
The distinction is simple. Players have no way to determine the drops from a lockbox. There was no course of action distinct from normal activity, nor any way to prove it was intentional. After all, when you open a lock box you are indeed supposed to get drops.
This however involved a deliberate set of actions with an end result they is obviously and explicitly unintentional - bypassing the weekly timer or otherwise circumventing the prerequisites.
In both cases they gave us Opportunity, but in the former they cannot prove intent (as we could plead ignorance of their drop rates). In the latter, the actions obviously bypassed clearly stated prerequisites, so engaging in that course of action demonstrates intent.
That latter also applied to the AH exploit. When you're buying something you're supposed to pay, not get paid. No one will believe anyone pleading ignorance about how purchasing things work. Therefore anyone who engaged in it is demonstrating intent to exploit.
Wow someone who completely understands, thanks for that.
Guild Master of <Enemy Team>
We are definitely dominating, and we are always about to win.
The distinction is simple. Players have no way to determine the drops from a lockbox. There was no course of action distinct from normal activity, nor any way to prove it was intentional. After all, when you open a lock box you are indeed supposed to get drops.
This however involved a deliberate set of actions with an end result they is obviously and explicitly unintentional - bypassing the weekly timer or otherwise circumventing the prerequisites.
In both cases they gave us Opportunity, but in the former they cannot prove intent (as we could plead ignorance of their drop rates). In the latter, the actions obviously bypassed clearly stated prerequisites, so engaging in that course of action demonstrates intent.
That latter also applied to the AH exploit. When you're buying something you're supposed to pay, not get paid. No one will believe anyone pleading ignorance about how purchasing things work. Therefore anyone who engaged in it is demonstrating intent to exploit.
I think you are missing the point which is on HOW THE DEVS HANDLE BOTH CASES.
If the box is unintended, why there is no rollback? No rollback, ok, but still have to insult the legit players that those who get the mounts are considered "lucky".
Had the devs managed this incident more appropriately, like "We will look into this." and even if nothing is done, at least players will be partially appeased, and will be more receptive of the sharing ban. Now, it just reeks of double standard.
Honestly, I could understand a temp ban for it. But this quest has no marketable reward, and any 'advantage over other players' is virtually nonexistant. Permaban for this is ridiculous... and you know it.
If the box is unintended, why there is no rollback? No rollback, ok, but still have to insult the legit players that those who get the mounts are considered "lucky".
Why is it an insult? Cryptic is giving away items from the zen store in STO, sometimes, including some expensive 2k zen items. It's their right to make a 100% discount on any price, or to rise a droprate. This isn't an insult, it's a choice they do about their virtual items.
Honestly, I could understand a temp ban for it. But this quest has no marketable reward, and any 'advantage over other players' is virtually nonexistant. Permaban for this is ridiculous... and you know it.
This. Permaban for a first offense that doesn't give economic advantage or even any quest advantage (still need the other items from the dailies to progress) is over the top.
Why is it an insult? Cryptic is giving away items from the zen store in STO, sometimes, including some expensive 2k zen items. It's their right to make a 100% discount on any price, or to rise a droprate. This isn't an insult, it's a choice they do about their virtual items.
Then it is a very bad way of giving away the nightmare mount, and a very choice of words on how they interpret the event as (Lucky players).
It is not just a verbal indirect insult to legit gamers, but also in-game insult of legit players by rewarding those who got lucky (aka knew the bug beforehand) by giving away Nightmare mounts as long as the player has keys, while legit players who also have keys but refuse to abuse it, or players with no keys during that period, are trolled with both the ingame announcement and on the forum.
So, why Cryptic cannot be so kind, like in STO, to just give everyone a free mount, since they have power on their choice on their virtual items? Ambiguous much? (And no, that crapalistic worthless cat cape is not counted.)
Why is it an insult? Cryptic is giving away items from the zen store in STO, sometimes, including some expensive 2k zen items. It's their right to make a 100% discount on any price, or to rise a droprate. This isn't an insult, it's a choice they do about their virtual items.
Except for the fact that Cryptic did not intend on it to happen. Proof of that is the fact that the servers came down and the drop rate was fixed. They even said in an annoucement that the rate was not intended. Therefore anyone who knew of this from the preview shard was ready with 100+ keys. Dont sit there and try to defend the people that exploited this by saying "what about the people that only opened 2 or 3 and got a couple a mounts". There are MANY people out there that now have over a hundred mounts and your trying to tell me those people had no idea what was going on? BS.
I think you are missing the point which is on HOW THE DEVS HANDLE BOTH CASES.
No, you need to actually read what I wrote rather than randomly raging.
With the lockboxes, there is no way to prove intent. The player opened a lockbox with keys, which is normal and demonstrates no intent to exploit. The player has no way of knowing anything is wrong - what if that was their first day playing? Cryptic has no way to prove the player intentionally used their error to gain an unfair advantage over others. The player in this case can legitimately claim ignorance.
With the AH exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Purchasing items is an exchange of money for goods, so anyone deliberately bidding negative amounts is obviously intentionally taking advantage of the design flaw for personal gain (ie. exploiting). The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With the Foundry exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Being able to kill 50 ogres instantly without ever being in danger is obviously a design flaw, as reward without risk is unheard of. Adages exist in every language about there being no free lunch. Anyone repeatedly running those maps is therefore demonstrating intent to take advantage of the design flaw for personal gain. The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With this quest sharing exploit, the quest has clearly stated eligibility prerequisites, which means the player cannot claim ignorance. Repeatedly making use of the method demonstrates intent to bypass the timer to gain an advantage. (Note also that this is not the first time quest sharing has been exploitable, it was also done in the first few weeks of Open Beta. Bans were handed out.)
With the former PvP spawn/campfire vulnerability, it is given as obvious that the spawns/campfires are safe areas. This meant that anyone taking advantage of map design flaws to attack those at the campfire has demonstrated intent.
In the context of those cases, there has been absolutely no inconsistency in how the devs has responded. Only when there is reasonable evidence of intent have bans been handed out. In all the above cases other than the lockboxes, they can distinguish between legitimate behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were handed out. In the case of the lockboxes, they cannot differentiate between normal behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were not handed out.
This however involved a deliberate set of actions with an end result they is obviously and explicitly unintentional - bypassing the weekly timer or otherwise circumventing the prerequisites.
Well your logic fails when not everyone knew about the weekly timer on that quest. Some people said cryptic knew about this for over a week or 2. At least they could of done is post it on the known bug list and say hey if you do this its an expoilt and you will get banned.
No, you need to actually read what I wrote rather than randomly raging.
With the lockboxes, there is no way to prove intent. The player opened a lockbox with keys, which is normal and demonstrates no intent to exploit. The player has no way of knowing anything is wrong - what if that was their first day playing? Cryptic has no way to prove the player intentionally used their error to gain an unfair advantage over others. The player in this case can legitimately claim ignorance.
With the AH exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Purchasing items is an exchange of money for goods, so anyone deliberately bidding negative amounts is obviously intentionally taking advantage of the design flaw for personal gain (ie. exploiting). The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With the Foundry exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Being able to kill 50 ogres instantly without ever being in danger is obviously a design flaw, as reward without risk is unheard of. Adages exist in every language about there being no free lunch. Anyone repeatedly running those maps is therefore demonstrating intent to take advantage of the design flaw for personal gain. The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With this quest sharing exploit, the quest has clearly stated eligibility prerequisites, which means the player cannot claim ignorance. Repeatedly making use of the method demonstrates intent to bypass the timer to gain an advantage. (Note also that this is not the first time quest sharing has been exploitable, it was also done in the first few weeks of Open Beta. Bans were handed out.)
With the former PvP spawn/campfire vulnerability, it is given as obvious that the spawns/campfires are safe areas. This meant that anyone taking advantage of map design flaws to attack those at the campfire has demonstrated intent.
In the context of those cases, there has been absolutely no inconsistency in how the devs has responded. Only when there is reasonable evidence of intent have bans been handed out. In all the above cases other than the lockboxes, they can distinguish between legitimate behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were handed out. In the case of the lockboxes, they cannot differentiate between normal behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were not handed out.
This argument is nuts. Intent is proven by the fact that players continued opening boxes despite the drop rate being OBVIOUSLY incorrect.
No, you need to actually read what I wrote rather than randomly raging.
With the lockboxes, there is no way to prove intent. The player opened a lockbox with keys, which is normal and demonstrates no intent to exploit. The player has no way of knowing anything is wrong - what if that was their first day playing? Cryptic has no way to prove the player intentionally used their error to gain an unfair advantage over others. The player in this case can legitimately claim ignorance.
With the AH exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Purchasing items is an exchange of money for goods, so anyone deliberately bidding negative amounts is obviously intentionally taking advantage of the design flaw for personal gain (ie. exploiting). The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With the Foundry exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Being able to kill 50 ogres instantly without ever being in danger is obviously a design flaw, as reward without risk is unheard of. Adages exist in every language about there being no free lunch. Anyone repeatedly running those maps is therefore demonstrating intent to take advantage of the design flaw for personal gain. The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With this quest sharing exploit, the quest has clearly stated eligibility prerequisites, which means the player cannot claim ignorance. Repeatedly making use of the method demonstrates intent to bypass the timer to gain an advantage. (Note also that this is not the first time quest sharing has been exploitable, it was also done in the first few weeks of Open Beta. Bans were handed out.)
With the former PvP spawn/campfire vulnerability, it is given as obvious that the spawns/campfires are safe areas. This meant that anyone taking advantage of map design flaws to attack those at the campfire has demonstrated intent.
In the context of those cases, there has been absolutely no inconsistency in how the devs has responded. Only when there is reasonable evidence of intent have bans been handed out. In all the above cases other than the lockboxes, they can distinguish between legitimate behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were handed out. In the case of the lockboxes, they cannot differentiate between normal behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were not handed out.
Agree with everything except the lockbox issues, The bug was known on preview and reported on preview. There were people ready for it to make it to live. i understand that some people WERE innocent but the people that walked away from that with 100+ mounts were not. As i said before, the impact that this bug will have on the ingame economy and the zen/ad exchange will happen very slowly as the people that exploited it will only sell them to the highest bidder and nothing cheaper. Once they are sold and they exchange all of that AD for Zen and end up with 1000s of dollars worth or Zen that they did not purchase cryptic will shoot themselves for not doing a roll back. The people that exploited thiss will empty the Zen exchange eventually, it just may not happen for a while.
This needs to be addressed. It doesn't only affect the banned players. It has destroyed the community for many long time players that haven't been banned.
Lol give me a break... any quest with a cooldown is obviously intended to have said cooldown, I would think anyone with a brain could grasp this. Read Darkjeff's post, that is very good explanation of the big differences in the two instances.
Your ignoring the fact that people DID exploit the lockboxes and focusing solely on the fact that there were innocent parties as well. Well guess what, the fact that ANYONE exploited it should have been grounds enough for a whooping 40 min rollback. To the people that were innocent, lifes not fair, get over it.
0
kantazo1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited August 2013
The lockbox bug was known in the tester shard and many people knowingly exploited the bug, because the devs didn't fix it. Because it would generate a big amount of $$$$ in Zens sale period.
The moral of the story is: as a developer/publisher, if you don't want your game to go down the tubes, you have to enforce your policies with absolute integrity and consistency. It's even more important to do so when you sell in-game assets for real money.
The moral of the story is: as a developer/publisher, if you don't want your game to go down the tubes, you have to enforce your policies with absolute integrity and consistency. It's even more important to do so when you sell in-game assets for real money.[/QUOTE}
Which they did not do in this case at all. I get your point well made
Agree with everything except the lockbox issues, The bug was known on preview and reported on preview.
Actually, this makes it worse from the perspective of "incorrect drop rates". It was reported, but no action was taken, therefore they can infer that the "new" drop rates were in fact correct. (I don't believe it, but the claim can be made and it weakens any assertion that the drop rates were "obviously incorrect".)
Picture a jewelry store with no doors and nobody watching the store. The store is at fault for allowing themselves to be robbed (and wouldn't qualify for insurance due to not taking reasonable precautions against theft), but that doesn't make the theft legal.
K, it is kind of true how the quest is setting the trap to lure immoral players. Like the store, it will be a laughing stock to consumers and competitors.
Actually, this makes it worse from the perspective of "incorrect drop rates". It was reported, but no action was taken, therefore they can infer that the "new" drop rates were in fact correct. (I don't believe it, but the claim can be made and it weakens any assertion that the drop rates were "obviously incorrect".)
Cryptic could have just let the "new" drop rates carry on, and everyone will be happy with their Nightmare mounts. Taking it down and claiming its drop rate is too high already sublimely states it is not intented.
Using that same meta data you speak of you can see who played on the preview shard and coincidently opened up tons of boxes the second live came up and got tons of mounts. logic is flawed.
That would require a lot of work for just a handful of players.
My logic isn't flawed just the reason why Cryptic let it go with lockbox and not quest sharing bug. They have banned players previous for using the same exploit. So I'm not surprised they banned players again for abusing the quest sharing bug.
LOL serious imbalance? Sir Serious imbalance was introduced in the game when players that have spent $100 to get a mount didn't and other players who knew before hand about the bug grabbed 100s of mounts, how a group of players with dozens and even hundred of mounts dos not create an imbalance?
How do you know 100% of those players that got the mounts all exploited? You don't and nether does Cryptic and why they did not ban players for this bug.
I've watched players on Twitch open hundreds of lockboxes during their streams as an event. I have guildmates that open hundreds of lockboxes all the time because that's how they get their coal wards. So any player could have just been doing what they normally do and got mounts this time around vs. the average loot.
That would require a lot of work for just a handful of players.
My logic isn't flawed just the reason why Cryptic let it go with lockbox and not quest sharing bug. They have banned players previous for using the same exploit. So I'm not surprised they banned players again for abusing the quest sharing bug.
Sorry but its not my problem that doing this would require actual work and investigation. Its what devs get paid for. Its called doing your job. Its acutally pretty simple to figure out. 1. Check logs from that day to see who got tons of mounts. Step 2 check preview shard for activity from that account. Step 3 check logs from that accounts activity on preview shard. That alone should be able to tell you what you need to know to make a decision. The fact that it requires work should not be a concern when it comes to rooting out exploits. And if they dont wanna do the footwork to figure it out then they should not be running an MMO period.
So tell me, why can't Cryptic rollback the Nightmare incident, just like the Caturday incident?
I feel they absolutely should, since it would have been less than one day.
Regardless though, the lockbox and weekly quest situations are different. Even if they rollback the lockbox (which I feel they should have, on the day it happened which would result in a minimum amount of progress lost) they would/should still be banning the people bypassing the weekly timer anyway.
Comments
The distinction is simple. Players have no way to determine the drops from a lockbox. There was no course of action distinct from normal activity, nor any way to prove it was intentional. After all, when you open a lock box you are indeed supposed to get drops.
This however involved a deliberate set of actions with an end result they is obviously and explicitly unintentional - bypassing the weekly timer or otherwise circumventing the prerequisites.
In both cases they gave us Opportunity, but in the former they cannot prove intent (as we could plead ignorance of their drop rates). In the latter, the actions obviously bypassed clearly stated prerequisites, so engaging in that course of action demonstrates intent.
That latter also applied to the AH exploit. When you're buying something you're supposed to pay, not get paid. No one will believe anyone pleading ignorance about how purchasing things work. Therefore anyone who engaged in it is demonstrating intent to exploit.
Wow someone who completely understands, thanks for that.
We are definitely dominating, and we are always about to win.
I think you are missing the point which is on HOW THE DEVS HANDLE BOTH CASES.
If the box is unintended, why there is no rollback? No rollback, ok, but still have to insult the legit players that those who get the mounts are considered "lucky".
Had the devs managed this incident more appropriately, like "We will look into this." and even if nothing is done, at least players will be partially appeased, and will be more receptive of the sharing ban. Now, it just reeks of double standard.
Nope, I'm not banned. I'm just very
Why is it an insult? Cryptic is giving away items from the zen store in STO, sometimes, including some expensive 2k zen items. It's their right to make a 100% discount on any price, or to rise a droprate. This isn't an insult, it's a choice they do about their virtual items.
This. Permaban for a first offense that doesn't give economic advantage or even any quest advantage (still need the other items from the dailies to progress) is over the top.
Then it is a very bad way of giving away the nightmare mount, and a very choice of words on how they interpret the event as (Lucky players).
It is not just a verbal indirect insult to legit gamers, but also in-game insult of legit players by rewarding those who got lucky (aka knew the bug beforehand) by giving away Nightmare mounts as long as the player has keys, while legit players who also have keys but refuse to abuse it, or players with no keys during that period, are trolled with both the ingame announcement and on the forum.
So, why Cryptic cannot be so kind, like in STO, to just give everyone a free mount, since they have power on their choice on their virtual items? Ambiguous much? (And no, that crapalistic worthless cat cape is not counted.)
nice join date
Normally, a player who has fun with the game will not come into forums, until sheet hits the fan.
Except for the fact that Cryptic did not intend on it to happen. Proof of that is the fact that the servers came down and the drop rate was fixed. They even said in an annoucement that the rate was not intended. Therefore anyone who knew of this from the preview shard was ready with 100+ keys. Dont sit there and try to defend the people that exploited this by saying "what about the people that only opened 2 or 3 and got a couple a mounts". There are MANY people out there that now have over a hundred mounts and your trying to tell me those people had no idea what was going on? BS.
With the lockboxes, there is no way to prove intent. The player opened a lockbox with keys, which is normal and demonstrates no intent to exploit. The player has no way of knowing anything is wrong - what if that was their first day playing? Cryptic has no way to prove the player intentionally used their error to gain an unfair advantage over others. The player in this case can legitimately claim ignorance.
With the AH exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Purchasing items is an exchange of money for goods, so anyone deliberately bidding negative amounts is obviously intentionally taking advantage of the design flaw for personal gain (ie. exploiting). The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With the Foundry exploit, the player cannot claim ignorance. Being able to kill 50 ogres instantly without ever being in danger is obviously a design flaw, as reward without risk is unheard of. Adages exist in every language about there being no free lunch. Anyone repeatedly running those maps is therefore demonstrating intent to take advantage of the design flaw for personal gain. The player cannot believably claim ignorance.
With this quest sharing exploit, the quest has clearly stated eligibility prerequisites, which means the player cannot claim ignorance. Repeatedly making use of the method demonstrates intent to bypass the timer to gain an advantage. (Note also that this is not the first time quest sharing has been exploitable, it was also done in the first few weeks of Open Beta. Bans were handed out.)
With the former PvP spawn/campfire vulnerability, it is given as obvious that the spawns/campfires are safe areas. This meant that anyone taking advantage of map design flaws to attack those at the campfire has demonstrated intent.
In the context of those cases, there has been absolutely no inconsistency in how the devs has responded. Only when there is reasonable evidence of intent have bans been handed out. In all the above cases other than the lockboxes, they can distinguish between legitimate behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were handed out. In the case of the lockboxes, they cannot differentiate between normal behavior and intent to exploit, so bans were not handed out.
Well your logic fails when not everyone knew about the weekly timer on that quest. Some people said cryptic knew about this for over a week or 2. At least they could of done is post it on the known bug list and say hey if you do this its an expoilt and you will get banned.
This argument is nuts. Intent is proven by the fact that players continued opening boxes despite the drop rate being OBVIOUSLY incorrect.
Agree with everything except the lockbox issues, The bug was known on preview and reported on preview. There were people ready for it to make it to live. i understand that some people WERE innocent but the people that walked away from that with 100+ mounts were not. As i said before, the impact that this bug will have on the ingame economy and the zen/ad exchange will happen very slowly as the people that exploited it will only sell them to the highest bidder and nothing cheaper. Once they are sold and they exchange all of that AD for Zen and end up with 1000s of dollars worth or Zen that they did not purchase cryptic will shoot themselves for not doing a roll back. The people that exploited thiss will empty the Zen exchange eventually, it just may not happen for a while.
Your ignoring the fact that people DID exploit the lockboxes and focusing solely on the fact that there were innocent parties as well. Well guess what, the fact that ANYONE exploited it should have been grounds enough for a whooping 40 min rollback. To the people that were innocent, lifes not fair, get over it.
Actually, this makes it worse from the perspective of "incorrect drop rates". It was reported, but no action was taken, therefore they can infer that the "new" drop rates were in fact correct. (I don't believe it, but the claim can be made and it weakens any assertion that the drop rates were "obviously incorrect".)
did PWE/cryptic increase revenue with zen purchases - NOT AN EXPLOIT - JUST LUCKY
did PWE/Cryptic lose revenue due to no zen purchases - EXPLOIT - PERMA BAN HAMMER
K, it is kind of true how the quest is setting the trap to lure immoral players. Like the store, it will be a laughing stock to consumers and competitors.
Cryptic could have just let the "new" drop rates carry on, and everyone will be happy with their Nightmare mounts. Taking it down and claiming its drop rate is too high already sublimely states it is not intented.
That would require a lot of work for just a handful of players.
My logic isn't flawed just the reason why Cryptic let it go with lockbox and not quest sharing bug. They have banned players previous for using the same exploit. So I'm not surprised they banned players again for abusing the quest sharing bug.
How do you know 100% of those players that got the mounts all exploited? You don't and nether does Cryptic and why they did not ban players for this bug.
I've watched players on Twitch open hundreds of lockboxes during their streams as an event. I have guildmates that open hundreds of lockboxes all the time because that's how they get their coal wards. So any player could have just been doing what they normally do and got mounts this time around vs. the average loot.
Sorry but its not my problem that doing this would require actual work and investigation. Its what devs get paid for. Its called doing your job. Its acutally pretty simple to figure out. 1. Check logs from that day to see who got tons of mounts. Step 2 check preview shard for activity from that account. Step 3 check logs from that accounts activity on preview shard. That alone should be able to tell you what you need to know to make a decision. The fact that it requires work should not be a concern when it comes to rooting out exploits. And if they dont wanna do the footwork to figure it out then they should not be running an MMO period.
Regardless though, the lockbox and weekly quest situations are different. Even if they rollback the lockbox (which I feel they should have, on the day it happened which would result in a minimum amount of progress lost) they would/should still be banning the people bypassing the weekly timer anyway.