Does Glitching results to ban?

sometimes i feel that it is wrong that people can get banned for the failure of the developers =/

Dont worry. A great deal of venos bug abuse and never get banned.

volst wrote: »

They should just ban all ranged classes since they have attacked the guard towers in fb29 and 79 at least once and it was unable to fight back.

Why not just make the towers fight back...?

The tower has other other mobs that aggro around it to protect him(the lantern).

CardEggStore - Harshlands wrote: »

This is a joke post right?

If it was a known exploit/bannable offense that has existed in the game for as long as this no veno's would be playing the game right now.

And it's not just veno's

Fb59 gate guards do not attack if hit by range
Already stated fb79 gate guard (tower) does not attack if hit by range

If the stated arguement "if it can't hit back, it's bannable" was implemented we would have but a fraction of the players on the server.

If the veno nix bug was bannable then it should be fixed by now as it's been in the game since the nix has.

If a GM states it's bannable then PWI becomes a joke.

Don't get your high hopes up for an official response.

Everything you posted is true, but why are you hiding on an alt?

I'm not sure what's a glitch here and what's not...

For instance I know that at least at one point Kimsa was soloable with a veno and a flying pet. It wasn't a glitch, it was within the bounds of the game.

Kimsa, a purely physical boss, has/had a shorter range than the foxwing. Attacking from above allows/allowed the foxwing to attack from within it's range and kimsa having the shorter range could not attack back.

Additionally, the flyer was in close enough range that Kimsa did not attack lose aggro either.

Is this a glitch? The flyer having longer range and able to attack without entering the range of Kimsa? The aggro range being close enough to keep aggro on the pet without allowing Kimsa to attack?

Everything has boundaries and is part of the environment we are given. If we utilize those boundaries and the environment is that considered a glitch?

After all, in this case, nothing is preventing Kimsa from attacking. He wants to attack, he is able to attack, but he is "physically" limited to a range and therefore does not attack. This isn't far different from using ranged weapons/skills and constantly running away to stay away from his attack. It would be a slow slow slooooow way to kill him but technically could be done.

I've seen level 100+ mobs attacked and killed this same way by various level venos not even close to level 100.

In the real world, many a man has died because his weapon was vastly inferior to his attackers. Snipers with long range rifles taking out adversaries from great distances while return fire falls in the dirt far short. Maybe this is a glitch in the real world? Nah.

I say unless you are utilizing something beyond the boundaries, you aren't glitching...but that's my opinion. If I knew that dragging a boss to the closest town would cause him to get stuck in a wall and that prevented it from moving while I killed it, that would be a glitch...in my opinion. Attacking a boss/mob in the wild using nothing more than the abilities I've been GIVEN should be considered fair and "legal".

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

Attacking any boss, including Kimsa, in such a way as to disallow the boss fighting back is considered glitching and is certainly bannable. I'm not 100% on this, but i think even glitching regular mobs will result in sanctions. Why? Because it's CHEATING.

A veno should NEVER use an air pet to attack a ground mob if this means said mob can't fight back. Period.

It would be nice to have official clarification on this. A glitch is something typically outside the rules of the game. Not the "terms of service" so much as what is actually programmed in the game that happens in a specific range. Attacking from the air is not outside those rules, ranges of mobs/pets/chars are not outside those rules and holding aggro by vicinity is also not outside those rules and therefore "should" be not ban-able. Again, just my opinion. Using real world war as the example again. A stealth bomber dropping munitions on a ground target from 5 miles up isn't really any different other that it's almost ensured that 1 shot kills.

Again, clarification on this would be nice..

Though in the instance of Kimsa... why give him such a short range that air pets are out of said range?

Edited (added the content below):

Human nature is to take advantage of what we are given... If what it deemed as a "glitch" goes unpatched, humans will continue to take advantage. Like PK'ing in room 1 of the cube. Yes, we know you can do it, yes we know you're not supposed to, but it's still there... Again, why not just fix it instead of holding people accountable for what they continue to allow to happen but merely saying "no". Contrary to real world analogies, the rules of the game can be modified but haven't been. Allowing it to happen is in a way, permission.

mobs/bosses not fighting back on an air pet has nothing to do with range. the only way to make that work is to send it in from directly above it and drop it on the monsters head. certain mobs are coded improperly and do not allow attacking directly above themselves. if done properly this can also be done with melee classes like bm/barb although harder to get in that perfect spot in relation to the monster.

this is why it is considered a banable offense. you have to go out of your way to get in the proper position to make this happen. if you go at an angle you get hit. if you drop directly on its head you dont.

Telarith - Sanctuary wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it is a normal mob or boss, anytime the mob is not able to fight back it is a bannable offense. The reports are usually due to bosses, as that is/was an area it saw more prominent use from the difficulty in getting a group for it. Using the same glitch for grinding is no different, as it is the glitch being exploited that is the issue; not how much is gained from the glitch.

Don't knock it til you've tried it. The glitch covers a huge range of attack angles from the air. It's virtually impossible to avoid it if you're fighting from the air with a pet, unless you either fly really close to the ground (which defeats the purpose of fighting from the air), or send you pet to only attack mobs which are far away (which eats up a lot of time and increases the likelihood of encountering another bug - see below).

As for the inevitable question why the veno is fighting from the air instead of from the ground: Air pets are buggy and frequently get stuck in terrain when you fight from the ground or send the pet at low attack angles (stuff far away). Using your pet to avoid this bug actually makes it more likely you'll encounter the no-attack glitch. BTW, there's also a reverse glitch where the mob can attack your air pet but the air pet can't fight back. I've lost pets a few times due to that one. Not fun back when phoenix food was 60k a pop. So it's not like this is one-sided.

The whole thing is a morass of multiple bugs. At first I was careful to reposition my air pet whenever it happened, but it happens so frequently and repositioning wastes much more time than the extra heal I would have to cast if they were fighting back. Eventually you just get tired of it and just kill mobs regardless of whether they fight back or not. It's not like my phoenix and I were in any real danger of dying to these regular mobs. I am careful to avoid the glitch on bosses though.

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

An official stance has been made in this not one, but several times. Spoons was crystal clear about this.

Can you post a link because I can't find anything that relates to this particular bug being bannable.

Zhou_Yu - Heavens Tear wrote: »

In your example above where a flying pet is "tanking" said boss, the boss is not attacking back, he is bugged. Yes it's a bug, and yes it has been reported to our developers in China. Now in the meantime, anyone caught abusing this mechanic is subject to punishment.

Just because a bug exists, does not mean it's open for exploitation until it's fixed. We here at PWE are here to enforce the rules, and one of those rules is as follows:

(l) Using or exploiting any bugs, errors, or design flaws to obtain unauthorized access to the Service or to gain an unfair advantage over other players.

This is the response Xarfox gave regarding the subject.

http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=96272&highlight=glitch+attack+petite+sawfly&page=2

I honestly can't understand how ANYONE can sit at their computer and make claims that doing such things is ok or even (the ever famous cop-out) "if the devs don't fix it, it's ok". Some people are just to full of fail to play a game the way it's supposed to be and find it necessary to use and even defend the use of cheats and glitches. Just because a bug exists, does not mean it's open for exploitation until it's fixed. It's not difficult to understand what he's saying there. Pretty simple and straight forward. Many people simply don't get caught or are not reported.

Then it is deemed a bug... but I don't recall any big bright pop saying "this is a bug" when a bug occurs. Are all players to assume that anything and everything they do could be a bug and be an offense that is capable of a ban?

On this issue it does not appear to be a bug, it merely appears that the flying pet has more range than the ground mob... especially since magic mobs do indeed fight back but physicals do not.

Finding anything proves difficult for this game. So many times I see a post that says "use search" but unless you know what has been said before, you may not find anything on the subject simply because one searched for "error" instead of "mistake" for example.

Bugs are found and reported but there's no way to know what is a bug and what is not in game. Keeping in mind that the post you reference is well over a year old now and the "bug" still exists. Through patch after patch the "bug" is still there. At some point without progress the bug is no longer a bug but how the game works.

I will not defend anyone for exploiting a bug, glitch, whatever. I will however defend playing the game in a manner that seems normal and then being called out as exploiting it.

I do admit, I have killed mobs on my veno with a flying pet where the mob did not fight back. I've witnessed others do it as well. BUT I had no clue this was a bug. No inkling that it MIGHT even be a bug...and therefore had no cause to think I was exploiting anything nor was I intentionally exploiting anything.

Keep one thing in mind. Only SOME mobs have this "bug" making the issue even more convoluted. Kimsa had the "bug" as well as some level 100+ mobs I've seen...yet so many others do not. This makes it VERY diluted in game when determining as a player what is proper operation of the game mechanics and what is not.

This is all my opinion and to be taken with a grain of salt. But I believe when the teachers make a rule on the playground and don't tell the students, it's unfair to give detention to those who break the rule.

FruityMelons - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Then it is deemed a bug... but I don't recall any big bright pop saying "this is a bug" when a bug occurs. Are all players to assume that anything and everything they do could be a bug and be an offense that is capable of a ban?

On this issue it does not appear to be a bug, it merely appears that the flying pet has more range than the ground mob... especially since magic mobs do indeed fight back but physicals do not.

Finding anything proves difficult for this game. So many times I see a post that says "use search" but unless you know what has been said before, you may not find anything on the subject simply because one searched for "error" instead of "mistake" for example.

Bugs are found and reported but there's no way to know what is a bug and what is not in game. Keeping in mind that the post you reference is well over a year old now and the "bug" still exists. Through patch after patch the "bug" is still there. At some point without progress the bug is no longer a bug but how the game works.

I will not defend anyone for exploiting a bug, glitch, whatever. I will however defend playing the game in a manner that seems normal and then being called out as exploiting it.

I do admit, I have killed mobs on my veno with a flying pet where the mob did not fight back. I've witnessed others do it as well. BUT I had no clue this was a bug. No inkling that it MIGHT even be a bug...and therefore had no cause to think I was exploiting anything nor was I intentionally exploiting anything.

Keep one thing in mind. Only SOME mobs have this "bug" making the issue even more convoluted. Kimsa had the "bug" as well as some level 100+ mobs I've seen...yet so many others do not. This makes it VERY diluted in game when determining as a player what is proper operation of the game mechanics and what is not.

This is all my opinion and to be taken with a grain of salt. But I believe when the teachers make a rule on the playground and don't tell the students, it's unfair to give detention to those who break the rule.

All I can honestly say to this is Ur dur.......... Are you dense? No offense but you seriously must be its ALWAYS warning first then you can be banned and as you have now read this post and seen that its against the rules you are no longer exempt from this. Further actions of this nature might get you banned if you are reported. Its not really a bug it works like that they just don't want you doing it and its their game and their rules if they say to jump on one leg to fight everything guess what your going to be doing?

(That was rather harsh I am sorry if I came across as rude it seems like common knowledge to me but I suppose it might be a bit esoteric to you.)

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

The issue has been repeatedly brought up in the forums and is well known to the comunity at large. I'll grant you official confirmation is hard to find (thanks Zhou), i myself looked for it and could only find stuff on the Qingzi exploit (i may have been mistaken in thinking GMs had regularly confirmed this, as most of the posts i found are actually from mods) although i distinctly remember Spoons speaking on this. In all fairness he was fairly busy modding the forums and is something of a nightmare going through his posts...

It was a bit amusing to find out he played the ukelele tho. b:chuckle

I agree that you shouldn't be punished if you do this unknowingly, however i do consider there's little chance of this. Once you're able to take on Gouf, chances are you already have been told by someone. Many people choose to "ignore" such advice. Now, really...

But this can't be any further from actuality. My faction has 70ish people in it ranging from the high 80's down. There are venos in their 80s, 70s and 60s... When this was brought to their attention on physical mobs they didn't have 1) a clue that it could be done, let alone 2) any idea that it was a bug.

Not only that, but no one else in the faction either high or low level had any knowledge of such bug. Keeping in mind that we are not talking about single character players either. Some have 3 or 4 chars in their 80s, 90s.

I certainly won't take advantage of a known exploit...but when I found it could be done this way, it really did not occur that it might be a bug nor was I told otherwise until I read it in this thread.

Maybe there should be a compiled list of what not to exploit.. but then everyone will know what to go exploit then.

Oh, come on. First off i find it hard to believe you could regularly glitch bosses and not realize something is wrong. You don't realize other people are having a harder time? You really think you're that awesome?

And second, i don't believe in double standards. Glitching a boss is far different than the ocassional mob that might bug when grinding with a phoenix. You go out of your way to do it in the first scenario. Abusing an exploit is cheating, simple as that. Same as taking bosses into sz.

@ Jenna; Were you around back when a certain CS item "glitched" and they had to shut down 24hrs after maint? I guess those of us asking for a rollover were just qqing...