Conquest, exploting and fear
Zach the Moose
lingo, I have paid particular interest to the Conquest incident.
I am a level 12 Human Magician on the Veeshan server. I am still
learning. And there are plenty of times when the dynamics of the game
are frustrating.
But after reading over a thousand posts on the subject of the Conquest
incident and my own incident from last night, I am at the the point
where I feel like I am in a Catch 22 that could easily be solved by
Verdant.
Last night, I was walking along the path in WC that leads from near
the zone from HHP/HK to the first inn on the shore of the lake. I
could see the inn in the distance. I had an earth pet with a burnout
spell on it. I was buffed with my lesser shielding. I decided to
unload some loot for cash and see if the inn was selling Krispy Kreme
donuts *G*. It was nighttime and I am human so my eyesight was pretty
bad.
Out of nowhere, I am slapped down hard by a young kodiak. No, make
that two young kodiaks. Wait, maybe three. The mob/s were
graphically overlayed and so I could not tell you if there were two or
three (one of the truly frustrating things about the game). But I was
taking hits and trying to run like hell. My pet (so loyal and true)
was dispatched within a few seconds. Then, they turned to me. I was
now at the inn and right at the shore of the lake.
So, I decided that maybe I should just jump into the lake (I am at 65
or 66 on my swimming) and hope they drown or can't swim.
Then, I stop.
In my mind, I am wrestling. If I do jump into the lake, is that an
exploit? I don't know. And there is no place for me to find that
answer. I didn't have the time to do a /shout in the zone asking for
info. I didn't have time to search EQ boards or consult the EQ manual
that came with the software.
Considering the posts I have read and the general complaints about
Verdant CS and the GM's, I just decided to let myself die than risk
getting a "You have been summoned by the gods..." text rolling across
my screen or a "You are being warned..." (Perhaps it is an
overimagined fear, but the reputation of GM's being fair and
understanding is cursory at best.)
Several young kodiaks strike me down. The end. Finis. Applause.
I port back home, remem by spells and obtain my corpse, right there
just one step from the water.
Now, it is easy enough for someone to say, "Well, sure, you just jump
in the water." And I would know that this was okay how? From
everything I have read, it seems as though the "exploits" in the game
are understood on a trial-and-error basis. Even in the text logs from
Conquest and the official statement by Verdant, the exploit is never
really spelled out. There is vague language about z-axis and
exploting and misuse of CoH, etc. I still don't know what they
specifically did wrong. (I would love to have seen the logs when the
first person "expolited" the pathing issue, not to mention his/her
reaction.)
I know that my incident was a minor issue. I lost some exp and a pet.
But there *has* to be a better way to deal with this than
trail-and-error.
But for me, at this point, I like EQ, but when it comes to the point
where I cannot have a website or guidebook that gives better rules
than a vague statement about not exploiting, I wonder when the game
will be more of a concern about trying not to piss off the GM's than
trying to take down the Sleeper.
If that happens, then it stops being a game and starts being a monthly
fee trying to avoid the wrath of the gods. Not a game I am
particularly interested in playing.
Athanasius
Joe Bott
is Verant, not Verdant. I cant imagine where people find that 'd'. Ah well.
But anyways, you should've jumped in the water, and then died. Nearly
everything in the game will happily go in the water to chase you. But even
not knowing this, you should never have to worry about 'accidentally'
exploiting. If you do something, and you realize that it's letting you get
away with something, no big deal, the GMs arent going to come grab you. But,
if you continue doing this, knowing full well you shouldnt be, well, thats
trouble. :)
I hope that made sense. :)
Joe
Nalinie, 55th Mage of Veeshan.
Zach the Moose wrote in message
<9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com>...
adenine!
wouldn't be considered an exploit anyway. The big difference is that
Conquest knew what they were doing. They obviously planned the whole thing
right from the start to exploit the bug, it's not like you start fighting
one of these things then suddenly say "hey wait a minute I think we can do
xxxx strategy and our clerics won't get hit!" Then of course they had to go
out and start firing off propaganda of how evil Verant is, which so many
people of course believed without hearing both sides of the story. People
should know better not to take for fact every word people say in a situation
like this. Much of the bad reputation of Verant CS comes from people not
telling the whole truth, or from stories that get blown way out of
proportion. It's not like there are 1000 GMs on every server watching every
move everyone does just waiting to warn them. It's not like some GM was
having a bad day and decided to arbitrarily warn/suspend/ban a bunch of
people in this guild. People who get in trouble get trouble for good
reason. And verdant means green :p
"Zach the Moose" <zachth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
Kilmir
spot it got stuck there almost unable to move or hit anything although the
tanks could hit it. They simply drove all those guardians to that spot and
beat it to crap.
The only "flaw" in the trick was that it could summon the clerics (and
tanks, but it wouldn't because those were in melee range already) in a
position in which it could hit them. A few mages using CoH to get them back
was all it took to keep everyone alive.
Plus they used a small bug with using the Rez spell, for when you have the
pop-up of "Do you want to be rezzed by xxx" you couldn't be slowed with the
slow spell of the guardians.
(This is all based on what I understood of 5 message boards and a few dozen
articles on it)
If this accidentally happend then there is no problem, but they continued
doing this without notifying the GM's of this bug. That's what's called
exploiting.
Kilmir
"Joe Bott" <jb...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:B1TU6.120283$4x5.18...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Zach the Moose
is one of those "you see part of a word and fill in the blank." Hey, I hit
the space bar to bypass the credit screen.
I shall endeavor to be better in the future.
"Joe Bott" <jb...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:B1TU6.120283$4x5.18...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Brandon Blackmoor
news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
>
> trail-and-error.
Verant wants tactics in EQ to be as simple as you standing in front of a
monster and trading blows with it until one of you dies. Every possible
tactical use of terrain, obstacles, or monster behavior is systematically
eliminated as Verant discovers it (or to be more precise, as Verant
discovers that significant numbers of players are aware of it). And if you
should discover some way of using tactics, of using terrain or monster
behavior to your advantage -- if you do what a person in the real world do,
in other words -- you are violating Verant's rules against "exploits".
That's what poor game designers do instead of fixing the game -- they
handicap the players.
So either play the game and enjoy what aspects of it you can, or move on.
This aspect of EverQuest hasn't changed in two years, and it isn't likely to
change in the future.
bblac...@blackgate.net
10 june 2001
Dark Tyger
>Verant wants tactics in EQ to be as simple as you standing in front of a
>monster and trading blows with it until one of you dies. Every possible
>tactical use of terrain, obstacles, or monster behavior is systematically
>eliminated as Verant discovers it (or to be more precise, as Verant
>discovers that significant numbers of players are aware of it). And if you
>should discover some way of using tactics, of using terrain or monster
>behavior to your advantage -- if you do what a person in the real world do,
>in other words -- you are violating Verant's rules against "exploits".
>That's what poor game designers do instead of fixing the game -- they
>handicap the players.
*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
glaringly obvious difference?
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Change "mindspring.com" to "knology.net" to email
=^..^=
The night is my companion...solitude my guide.
Zach the Moose
Conquest, are sure that this was an issue of them exploting bugs.
As I said, I have read the logs, read posts, read quite a bit over the
weekend and the best I could say is that we don't know the whole truth.
"Dark Tyger" <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vkd8itscdlb3t5ijm...@4ax.com...
hughes
>
> There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
> glaringly obvious difference?
Verant should have fixed the bug then not ban the people . Could care less
if one guild managed to get 4 uber items of mass destruction . It is far
more likely they would get cloth caps anyway . If its a farming sistuation
just announce the general lowering of the zone in 5 mins and keep it down
untill you get a chance to recode it .
It looks to me like conquest was probably exploiting a bug . Then verant
reacted as something other than a buisness which is their main fault . Its
not fair we are not winning is not really an ok attitude for a buisness .
Tactics is really a dirty word to verant and it wasnt always that way . They
just try and take the lazy way out .
Marc Fuller
>
[snip]
>
> And be REALLY careful about jumping into any lakes. In some places the
> fish come out of the water and chase you to the zone.
And then snack on everyone else on their way back to the pond. That's
assuming, of course, that they don't just float around on land until they
die, which some of them have been known to do. I hate the fish in the Lake
of Ill Omen, by the way. They look like a fish, move like a fish, but
fight like dirty b*stards. And every now and then some genius with
Levitate manages to drag a few of them out of the lake on their way through
the zone.
Marc Fuller
Dark Tyger
>> *Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
>>
>> There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
>> glaringly obvious difference?
>
>Verant should have fixed the bug then not ban the people .
No, they should not have exploited the fucking bug when they KNEW THEY
WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT and that doing it anyway was a BANNABLE
OFFENSE.
The fact that an exploit is there isn't justification to IGNORE THE
RULES.
YES, VI should have fixed the bug. But, CQ knew it was a bug, knew
exploiting it was against the rules, and did it anyway because they
thought they were too good for the rules. They deserved to get their
asses banned. And, given tales of CQ's schoolyard bully behavior on
Lanys (Ignoring raid calanders or using them to intentionally clear
the dungeon/plain before the guild on the calander can get to it),
more than a few people are glad they're gone.
Dan Day
>
>Plus they used a small bug with using the Rez spell, for when you have the
>pop-up of "Do you want to be rezzed by xxx" you couldn't be slowed with the
>slow spell of the guardians.
>
>(This is all based on what I understood of 5 message boards and a few dozen
>articles on it)
...and therein lies the problem of trying to get a good picture
of this issue from message boards (including this one)...
For example, having the "do you want to be rezzed" box up in no
way interferes with the slow spell of the Guardian. And there
are similar problems with the other things you tried to describe.
I'm not picking on you in particular, just using your post
to illustrate that all too many of the folks who are passing
judgement on this issue (on both sides) are doing so with a
very "blind men and the elephant" view of what actually
happened.
Dan Day
>
>No, they should not have exploited the fucking bug
Your evidence that there was a bug involved is what?
> when they KNEW THEY
>WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT
Your evidence that they "knew they were not supposed to
do it" is what?
>But, CQ knew it was a bug,
Evidence, please.
>and did it anyway because they
>thought they were too good for the rules.
Evidence, please?
>And, given tales of CQ's schoolyard bully behavior on
>Lanys (Ignoring raid calanders or using them to intentionally clear
>the dungeon/plain before the guild on the calander can get to it),
>more than a few people are glad they're gone.
Ahhh....
Dan Day
>
>But for me, at this point, I like EQ, but when it comes to the point
>where I cannot have a website or guidebook that gives better rules
>than a vague statement about not exploiting, I wonder when the game
>will be more of a concern about trying not to piss off the GM's than
>trying to take down the Sleeper.
I couldn't agree with you more, Zach.
I'm planning my own dragon raid, and there are quite a few
possible tactics I'd like to try that seem perfectly reasonable
to me (i.e., they are the things I would attempt if I were
actually going to fight a dragon), but about which I constantly
have to try to second-guess whether Verant would view them
as tactics, or as "exploits". Sadly, the more clever the
idea, the more likely it is to be considered an "exploit"
just because it is so unorthodox.
And it's not as simple as "asking Verant first", as another
poster suggested. I know if I asked 10 Verant reps, I'd
get 10 different answers. And even if all 10 said some
variation of "that sounds okay to us", I could *still*
get screwed if a GM who happened to observe the raid
came to a different personal conclusion than the 10
I happened to ask.
As you point out, trying to walk the line between
clever tactic and damnable exploit can be tough when
Verant doesn't even want to spell out exactly what
they consider to be exploits. Verant's Catch-22 on
this matter isn't new with the Conquest flap, it's
so typical of them that here's a cartoon published
LAST YEAR on the very same problem:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2000-10-11
Nor is it good that Verant likes to insta-ban people
for disagreeing with Verant's judgement call about
what's an exploit and what isn't. It makes people
*really* nervous, which wouldn't be the case if
first or second offenses just got a "don't do that"
and a *clear* explanation of what people shouldn't
do in the future.
>If that happens, then it stops being a game and starts being a monthly
>fee trying to avoid the wrath of the gods. Not a game I am
>particularly interested in playing.
As I tried to explain to Verant several times before they
shut down their open forums, their real PR problem isn't
the nerfs or bans, it's about trust -- when they do
not sufficiently explain (or even attempt to bother
to justify) their actions, the player community
justifiably becomes nervous about what might
happen *next*, and whether it'll happen to *them*
next. That sort of "walking on a minefield" feeling
is not conducive to happy customers, but Verant
has never made any effort to defuse it. Usually,
in fact, their behavior only throws gasoline on it,
when a slightly different approach could go a LONG
way towards reassuring people instead of making them
even more apprehensive.
Verant has some of the most ham-handed public relations
I've ever seen.
Freek
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:08:34 -0500, Dark Tyger <dark...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> >And, given tales of CQ's schoolyard bully behavior on
> >Lanys (Ignoring raid calanders or using them to intentionally clear
> >the dungeon/plain before the guild on the calander can get to it),
> >more than a few people are glad they're gone.
LOL more then a few? You look at most all the Uber guilds in other
shards there will always be people who despise them...can we say
Jealousy?
God you are one Dumbfuck aren't you...Besides how the hell will you
ever know what high level guilds tactics can be considered exploits
when you are still busy fighting Firebeetles and chasing after that 400
pound Male Fat fuck who is posing as a wood elf babe?
Ben wilson
<dark...@mindspring.com> writes
>*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
>
>There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
>glaringly obvious difference?
They were smacked down so hard simply because of what they accomplished.
Ever been feared and left unable to cast spells other that /quitting and
coming back? How about being grav fluxed once for 10k damage? Mob use
'exploits' all the time that are 'low priority' fixing.
The difference between tactics and abusing bugs is, in a lot of cases, a
matter of semantics and one person's discretion. Without knowing *all*
the facts you can't say which side of the line they stood on. The GMs
obviously descided they were on the wrong side. You or I can't make the
same decision because we don't have access to all the facts
In essence, you are saying they were exploiting bugs because Verant says
they were. Whilst this is true (ToS state VI can ban you for whatever
they want without having to justify themselves) it is still perfectly
valid to discuss what did/didn't happen and what is a bug and what is a
tactic
--
Demorgoth Demonia
Ogre Warlord
Souls of the Sha...
erm... Nights Wa... Dark Horizon!
E'ci erm... ZubZub server!
Crying Freeman
> lingo, I have paid particular interest to the Conquest incident.
>
> So, I decided that maybe I should just jump into the lake (I am at 65
> or 66 on my swimming) and hope they drown or can't swim.
>
> Then, I stop.
>
> In my mind, I am wrestling. If I do jump into the lake, is that an
> exploit? I don't know. And there is no place for me to find that
> answer. I didn't have the time to do a /shout in the zone asking for
> info. I didn't have time to search EQ boards or consult the EQ manual
> that came with the software
OK, I know very little of this Conquest Vs Verant exploitation of bugs
thing. I know of Verants policy and don't always agree with it, in some
cases it's obvious abuse and on others it's not so clean cut but I'm not
getting into the arguement (anyone post the url to this discussion, I'd be
interested to read it)
Back to your escape options;
All mobs move thru water as they do on land, so you cannot out swim one
(maybe with 200 but I wouldn't want to test it) mobs also ignore walls and
the Z- (vertical) axis...best way to escape them is either zone or run to
guards (assuming Valon and Colin are not dead at the time)
You can outrun most mobs on land by strafe running. Using the mouse to
control direction hold down forward and left or right arrow on keyboard,
you'll move slightly quicker and can outrun most normal speed mobs with
this.
CF
jaZZmanian Devil
> You can outrun most mobs on land by strafe running. Using the mouse to
> control direction hold down forward and left or right arrow on keyboard,
> you'll move slightly quicker and can outrun most normal speed mobs with
> this.
Careful. I'm sure that's an abuse of the coding, giving the mob no chance to
reasonably catch you. Now that you've posted it in a public forum, the GMs
will be contacting you shortly to ban you.
;-)
--
Jakys Lv'Tyrr, the Mad Monk of Qeynos
Monk of 25 Seasons, Silent Fist
a.k.a.
Jakugg Blackheart, Troll Warrior of 35 Campaigns
- - - -
"Anything more than a metric buttload of mobs is a bardic pull."
Arolpin Lorespinner
StanMann
Dan Day wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:25:15 +0200, "Kilmir" <nos...@kill.com> wrote:
> >
> >Plus they used a small bug with using the Rez spell, for when you have the
> >pop-up of "Do you want to be rezzed by xxx" you couldn't be slowed with the
> >slow spell of the guardians.
> >
> >(This is all based on what I understood of 5 message boards and a few dozen
> >articles on it)
>
> ...and therein lies the problem of trying to get a good picture
> of this issue from message boards (including this one)...
>
> For example, having the "do you want to be rezzed" box up in no
> way interferes with the slow spell of the Guardian. And there
> are similar problems with the other things you tried to describe.
>
Actually it is the res slow(5%) that interferes with the Guardian
slow(75%) They were also using rez as a Warrior timable Cheal/agro
wipe.
StanMann
--
OK, I have tremendous admiration for someone who goes to the trouble of
learning American English when it isn't their native tongue, but there
is
precious little that is funnier than someone cursing in English when
they
aren't completely fluent in it. It's made even funnier when they're
apopleptic with rage, as Arnaud here is.--Brandon Blackmoor
Crying Freeman
jaZZmanian Devil <js...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B24B687...@stny.rr.com...
> Crying Freeman wrote:
>
> > You can outrun most mobs on land by strafe running. Using the mouse to
> > control direction hold down forward and left or right arrow on keyboard,
> > you'll move slightly quicker and can outrun most normal speed mobs with
> > this.
>
> Careful. I'm sure that's an abuse of the coding, giving the mob no chance
to
> reasonably catch you. Now that you've posted it in a public forum, the
GMs
> will be contacting you shortly to ban you.
Hehe, "abuse of code" like that was considered required skill set in Q2 and
Q3. You should see some of they ways people learnt to "abuse" the code :¬)
Saying this of course you are playing people who, assuming they spent the
time learning these techniques, would be able to do the same thing (Double
jumps, circle jumps and strafe jumping were all "accidents" in the Q2 engine
but were actually written in, to a lesser degree, for Q3)
The difference with EQ is that the mobs have only limited AI (VERY limited)
so exploiting the engine against them may seem valid but you are not in a
battle of wits with the computer because it has no wits.
CF
Dan Harmon
"Zach the Moose" <zachth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
The conspiracy theorists are few and far between. I know that Dan Day has
little or no respect for Verant and/or their customer service personnel, and
he's not alone. Hell, personally I think most are probably nice in real life
but they just don't THINK.
Bottom line, don't do stuff that you know is wrong and you should never have
a problem with a GM. Quite honestly they have more important stuff to do
(or at least a lot of minor stuff) than eyeing someone not petitioned.
If I understand the Conquest thing correctly, the GM's story is that
Conquest made it so that the critter would hate the cleric the most...and
there was no way for the critter to get to the cleric. EVERYONE who is over
level 50 knows that this would be an exploit. Whether this is the action of
a bunch of assholes in a guild or a rogue GM has no affect on you, the
average player.
Dan Harmon
"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote in message
news:FrWU6.11847$nf.47...@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net...
> "Zach the Moose" <zachth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > But there *has* to be a better way to deal with this than
> > trail-and-error.
>
> Verant wants tactics in EQ to be as simple as you standing in front of a
> monster and trading blows with it until one of you dies.
Verant requires at least a small possibility of risk. THE BASTARDS.
> That's what poor game designers do instead of fixing the game -- they
> handicap the players.
Uh huh...and what kind of "fix" would you suggest?
Dan Harmon
"hughes" <hugh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g7YU6.2508$eZ6.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > *Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
> >
> > There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
> > glaringly obvious difference?
>
> Verant should have fixed the bug then not ban the people.
When people act like children it is sometimes best to treat them like
children. If Verant's version is true, those people KNEW they were doing
something wrong...but did it anyway.
How do you treat a child that knows not to do something, but goes ahead &
does it anyway? You don't make it so they can't do that thing again (well,
you might, but not as a first reaction). You PUNISH them (assuming we're
still allowed to punish children).
It's not a hard concept. Don't do something you KNOW is wrong. If you're
level 50+ you KNOW what's wrong.
Dan Harmon
"Dan Day" <d...@firstnethou.com> wrote in message
news:3b289222...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:08:34 -0500, Dark Tyger <dark...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> >
> >No, they should not have exploited the fucking bug
>
> Your evidence that there was a bug involved is what?
>
>
> > when they KNEW THEY
> >WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT
>
> Your evidence that they "knew they were not supposed to
> do it" is what?
>
>
> >But, CQ knew it was a bug,
>
> Evidence, please.
*sigh* ASSUMING that CQ DID continually have a cleric in a safe place
casting CH on himself to keep himself on top of the hate list it doesn't
take a genius to know it's an exploit if a level 51+ critter can't summon
them then do damage.
It doesn't take a genius to know that it's an exploit any time you have ZERO
possibility to be on a critter's hate list but never get hurt.
I'm not accusing Verant or CQ of anything. The whole story bores me to
tears because we'll never find out the truth for sure. What I'm saying is
that if Verant's accusation is true, then yeah, it's an extremely easy to
see exploit.
Dan Harmon
"Freek" <.....NO.....@.....SPAM.....> wrote in message
news:J61V6.191$s4.64472@elnws01...
We say "server" not "shard."
I've never heard of CQ before today. They truly aren't an important entity.
Neither is FoH.
EQ is aimed at people over 13, and some maturity is desired. Perhaps you
might want to try another game out and come back in a few years.
Dan Harmon
> And it's not as simple as "asking Verant first", as another
> poster suggested. I know if I asked 10 Verant reps, I'd
> get 10 different answers. And even if all 10 said some
> variation of "that sounds okay to us", I could *still*
> get screwed if a GM who happened to observe the raid
> came to a different personal conclusion than the 10
> I happened to ask.
It's not at all difficult.
Ask yourself: Is everyone at some risk? If the answer is yes, no problem.
jaZZmanian Devil
> Bottom line, don't do stuff that you know is wrong and you should never have
> a problem with a GM. Quite honestly they have more important stuff to do
> (or at least a lot of minor stuff) than eyeing someone not petitioned.
>
> If I understand the Conquest thing correctly, the GM's story is that
> Conquest made it so that the critter would hate the cleric the most...and
> there was no way for the critter to get to the cleric. EVERYONE who is over
> level 50 knows that this would be an exploit. Whether this is the action of
> a bunch of assholes in a guild or a rogue GM has no affect on you, the
> average player.
I probably missed a lot of updates to the story over the weekend, but was it
ever determined exactly which "exploit" Verant was citing? Or "exploits" if
multiple infractions were cited? You used some interesting terminology in a
different post in this thread........ [sic] 'Verant requires at least *some*
level of risk' etc.
<Conquest> may be full of shit, or not, but it looked like the "Cleric under
the bridge" trick wasn't working from what we read. The Clerics were, in fact,
getting summoned, and then getting called back with CotH, yes? Which means the
mobs had a shot at them, yes? I think that's still the problem that I and a lot
of others have with this. It's gray areas like that, where apparently Verant
knows right where to draw the line (though it may vary wildly from one GM to the
next) and we have to guess. But with these guidelines, I have to say that you,
Biz, and everyone else saying "You *KNOW* when you're cheating" really can't
back it up. How much risk is "enough"? Unless other abuses were cited
specifically by Verant, I still don't see how it was "risk free" if they third
mob was kicking their asses that badly when the raid got shut down.
How about the other discussion here on the new GB quest mobs? The way that
they are in places where all their "supporting" friends are so low level that
the mobs are left helpless and alone up against a big scary warrior like me. I
killed hundreds and made almost two levels solo without every coming really
close to being killed. Was I "abusing and exploit" there? I'm really curious to
hear all the EQ Lawyers' call on this one. Or was what I did just fine?
--
Jakys Lv'Tyrr, the Mad Monk of Qeynos
Monk of 25 Seasons, Silent Fist
a.k.a.
Jakugg Blackheart, Troll Warrior of 36 Campaigns
Dan Harmon
"Crying Freeman" <fre...@108dragons.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9g2aa0$5je$1...@newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net...
> You can outrun most mobs on land by strafe running. Using the mouse to
> control direction hold down forward and left or right arrow on keyboard,
> you'll move slightly quicker and can outrun most normal speed mobs with
> this.
Or hold down your control key, the auto-run key and left or right key as an
option if you dislike using a mouse for ANYTHING as much as I do.
Richard Melvin
>
>There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
>glaringly obvious difference?
And you know this how?
I play a high level character on Lanys, I know several Conquest members,
and I've read a lot of message board and newsgroup posts about it.
And I don't know whether Conquest:
- were deliberately exploiting a bug
- were accidentally getting benefit from a bug without realising it.
- were unaffected by a bug which may or may not exist at that spot.
So, do you work for Verant? Or were you one of the 26 players in zone?
Or are you talking out of your ass?
Richard
Richard Melvin
Harmon <deha...@bigfoot.com> writes
>It's not at all difficult.
>
>Ask yourself: Is everyone at some risk? If the answer is yes, no problem.
How do you square this with the fact that the CQ raid that got them
banned was in the process of getting wiped out anyway, even before the
GM's intervened?
Richard
Dan Day
>> >But, CQ knew it was a bug,
>>
>> Evidence, please.
>
>*sigh* ASSUMING that CQ DID continually have a cleric in a safe place
They didn't.
>casting CH on himself to keep himself on top of the hate list
They didn't.
> it doesn't
>take a genius to know it's an exploit if a level 51+ critter can't summon
>them then do damage.
But the problem is that Dark Tyger is saying that CQ "knew" it
was a bug (still not sure *what* bug they're talking about -- your
example would be exploiting a bug, but that's *not* what they
were doing).
I've seen the logs of the discussion with the GM, and the
inter-guild chat during that time (it's HUGE, 1419 lines,
covering a time span of over an hour).
Contrary to DT's claim that they "knew" they were exploiting
a bug, the log is full of hundreds of statements like the following,
all of which indicate that the raid participants firmly believed
that they had done nothing wrong, that Verant was making
a huge mistake, and that Verant severely misunderstood what
they had seen when they watched the raid:
[Tue Jun 05 01:16:23 2001] You say to your guild, 'I have no idea what we could
have done wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:22:34 2001] Sticks tells the guild, 'If they played a lvl 60 for
reals they would know we weren't exploiting...'
[Tue Jun 05 01:26:49 2001] Truk tells the guild, 'he can path down itz'
[Tue Jun 05 01:26:56 2001] Sticks tells the guild, 'but duh he summons you and you
get hit by rampage down there'
[Tue Jun 05 01:26:57 2001] Caduseus tells the guild, 'so hiding to heal at naggy
is exploit?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:27:12 2001] You say, 'what was the exploit?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:27:18 2001] You say, 'this makes no sense'
[Tue Jun 05 01:27:22 2001] Sauw says, 'I like to know what we exploited'
[Tue Jun 05 01:27:31 2001] Furion says, 'I would like to know what I did wrong
before I'm suspended'
[Tue Jun 05 01:27:45 2001] Nalgene says, 'WE DID NOTHING WRONG'
[Tue Jun 05 01:27:56 2001] Gtath says, 'I think we deserve an explanation of what
we did wrong.'
[Tue Jun 05 01:28:21 2001] Sauw says, 'you need to tell us what it is we did
wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:29:39 2001] Caduseus says, 'can you tell us what we did that was
wrong? '
[Tue Jun 05 01:29:54 2001] Nalgene says, 'this is utter crap'
[Tue Jun 05 01:30:05 2001] Caduseus says, 'can we be told what "it" is please?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:30:05 2001] You say, 'I still don't understand what we did wrong?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:30:07 2001] Furion says, 'Why were we allowed into the zone if its
not finished and we're banned for doing anything inside it?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:31:01 2001] Dyneiko says, 'so we get banned for an exploit that we
no nothing about not only that.. there was danger.. we died several times.. i thot
an exploit is when we kill sumtin outta without getting harmed'
[Tue Jun 05 01:31:03 2001] Caduseus says, 'are you not going to tell us what we
did that wrong?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:31:11 2001] Asla says, 'I'm being suspended for twiching a Magician
that was using Call of Hero to keep agro off clerics....how is that an exploit
exactly?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:32:02 2001] You say, 'I still have no idea what we did wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:32:49 2001] Dyneiko says, 'this absolutely not fair for paying
customers.. You are not even telling us how we exploited.'
[Tue Jun 05 01:33:02 2001] Sauw says, 'yes it is fair to know what we did that was
wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:33:05 2001] You say, 'what was the exploit?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:33:12 2001] Caduseus says, 'all i want to know, is what did we do
that was against VI policy?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:33:18 2001] Ketsui says, 'the exploit was beating the game ahead of
their next thing'
[Tue Jun 05 01:33:26 2001] Gtath says, 'Shouldn't we know what we did wrong, so
that we can warn others not to do the same?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:34:01 2001] Dyneiko says, 'i don't care.. i have not one warning or
anything on my account that i know off.. and i am being banned for dieing to a mob
several times and being told i was exploiting'
[Tue Jun 05 01:34:14 2001] Asla says, 'How can you say we exploited when it is
clear we had no idea how Sleeper was awakened'
[Tue Jun 05 01:34:17 2001] Sycotic says, 'VAld, can i have an explenation'
[Tue Jun 05 01:34:22 2001] Sycotic says, 'ti have no diea what we did wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:34:44 2001] Caduseus says, 'would be good to know what we did WRONG
so as to prevent it from occuring again'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:12 2001] Dyneiko says, 'christ i played this game straight up
since beta phase one with out exploiting once that i know of and this is how i am
repayed by verant!?!?!'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:30 2001] Furion says, 'I'm accused of CHEATING when I don't even
know what I did'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:36 2001] Nalgene says, 'Not a single warning on my account and
im being called a cheater'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:45 2001] Nalgene says, 'Vald YOU ARE WRONG'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:47 2001] Caduseus says, 'wait'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:47 2001] Ketsui says, 'thats completely wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:48 2001] Sauw says, 'we weren't silenced'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:50 2001] Nalgene says, 'YOU are 100WORNG'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:56 2001] Nalgene says, 'so wrong you dont even know it man'
[Tue Jun 05 01:35:57 2001] Itzlegend says, 'no it wasnt, look at the logs, clerics
were being coh'd'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:08 2001] Ketsui says, 'yeah please look at logs before assuming
what you say is correct'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:16 2001] Ketsui says, 'we cnat lie on server logs even if you
dont believe us'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:19 2001] Sticks says, 'why don't you respawn us in sleepers and
we can re-create our fight'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:20 2001] You say, 'we didn't do that'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:24 2001] Nalgene says, 'Vald please check sycs logs from
sleepers'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:26 2001] Dyneiko says, 'so how is that exploiting.. they got hit
and we died.. there was danger..'
[Tue Jun 05 01:36:29 2001] Asla says, 'We were chain CoHing clerics. That is in
no way an exploit'
[Tue Jun 05 01:40:14 2001] Caylen says, 'Jeff was mistaken Val, and logs will
prove that'
[Tue Jun 05 01:41:11 2001] Caduseus says, 'if that was the case, why was I
summoned right off the bat?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:41:28 2001] Caduseus says, 'he summoned me after ONE heal'
[Tue Jun 05 01:42:21 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'if the clerics were aggro'd
why where they summoned up and killed?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:42:48 2001] Itzlegend says, 'please view those logs then vald'
[Tue Jun 05 01:44:57 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'he was aboutu to bann an
entire guild and he hadn't even parsed the log yet?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:46:07 2001] Itzlegend says, 'then cad got killed after summone,
before we could coh him'
[Tue Jun 05 01:46:22 2001] You say to your guild, 'killed sauw too'
[Tue Jun 05 01:46:23 2001] Itzlegend says, 'eventually another cleric surpasses my
aggro, and gets summoned, and killed'
[Tue Jun 05 01:46:40 2001] Itzlegend says, 'then it stays on me the remainder of
the fight , until i died, then everyone else died'
[Tue Jun 05 01:46:48 2001] Itzlegend says, 'melee's died here and there from
silence AE and riposte / rampage'
[Tue Jun 05 01:46:57 2001] Itzlegend says, 'and were rezed back into the fight'
[Tue Jun 05 01:47:12 2001] Ellyria tells the guild, 'i dont think we get banned or
anything, they just have to look at the logs and all fine, nothing to worry about,
just be patient'
[Tue Jun 05 01:48:51 2001] Ralanan tells the guild, 'well i have nothing to hide..
i would like to know what happening'
[Tue Jun 05 01:48:51 2001] You say to your guild, 'I still don't think we did
anything wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:48:53 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'I just find it very odd they
threaten to disband us before they even parse the logs'
[Tue Jun 05 01:52:04 2001] Nalgene tells the guild, 'ask him to check our melee's
logs'
[Tue Jun 05 01:52:05 2001] Itzlegend tells the guild, 'i think he will agree after
he see's logs'
[Tue Jun 05 01:52:30 2001] Itzlegend tells the guild, 'if he was aggro on a
cleric, they died instnatly'
[Tue Jun 05 01:52:34 2001] Truk tells the guild, 'if its impossible easier to
acuse of cheating then using other tactics'
[Tue Jun 05 01:52:45 2001] Asla tells the guild, 'how could they even think we
would want to keep agro on clerics'
[Tue Jun 05 01:52:58 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'Why would having aggro on
clerics constantly work? no one would get heals'
[Tue Jun 05 01:53:15 2001] Sauw tells the guild, 'makes no sense to put agro on
clerics that is a deathwish'
[Tue Jun 05 01:53:18 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'they'd get summoned and
destroyed'
[Tue Jun 05 01:53:47 2001] Itzlegend says, 'no summoning mob is killable by
keeping aggro on clerics... they die right away'
[Tue Jun 05 01:54:17 2001] Itzlegend tells the guild, 'we didnt do anything wrong
syc'
[Tue Jun 05 01:54:19 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'a cleric aggro on a mob that
AE silence is dead the moment they get summoned, they can't get a coh off that
fast nor can they DA'
[Tue Jun 05 01:54:47 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'so they think standing out of
line of sight of a spell so you don't get hit is exploiting?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:55:39 2001] Itzlegend tells the guild, 'hiding behind a wall is not
an exploit'
[Tue Jun 05 01:55:47 2001] Caduseus tells the guild, 'then we did NOTHING wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 01:56:18 2001] Furion tells the guild, 'If clerics weren't
intentionally getting aggro'd, our melee were getting killed off, what exactly did
we do wrong?'
[Tue Jun 05 01:56:59 2001] Sauw tells the guild, 'I still want to be told what I
did that was wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 02:03:36 2001] Asla tells the guild, 'If they do review the logs, i
dont see how how they can suspend us'
[Tue Jun 05 02:06:20 2001] Caduseus says, 'but the logs haven't even been
reviewed?'
[Tue Jun 05 02:07:10 2001] Dyneiko says, 'wouldn't it be more fair.. to make that
descision after you have absolute proof that we did sumtin that wrong?'
[Tue Jun 05 02:07:21 2001] Asla says, 'the logs will show exactly what happened,
we have been very honest and cooperative. I think we should at least be given the
courtesy to examine the information before assuming we are guilty'
[Tue Jun 05 02:08:29 2001] Asla says, 'your superiors just do not care to examine
the logs then?'
[Tue Jun 05 02:08:36 2001] You told Arduin, 'man I am leaving, we didn't do
anything wrong, they misunderstood what we were doing'
[Tue Jun 05 02:09:00 2001] Sauw says, 'why are we being suspsened if yo don't
knxow what we did wrong?'
[Tue Jun 05 02:09:25 2001] You told Arduin, 'think so but they didn't even parse
logs, they are clueless'
[Tue Jun 05 02:09:32 2001] Caylen says, 'just log guys, the logs will prove who is
truly at fault'
[Tue Jun 05 02:09:45 2001] Sticks tells the guild, 'they don't care about logs..
honestly'
[Tue Jun 05 02:10:02 2001] Sauw says, 'I want a reason please before you kick just
a simple one'
[Tue Jun 05 02:10:12 2001] Ketsui says, 'he said reason, because they 'think' we
did something wrong'
[Tue Jun 05 02:11:14 2001] Sauw says, 'because this is a massive personal insult I
am will be demanding compensation or proof of wrong doing'
[Tue Jun 05 02:11:27 2001] Ellyria tells the guild, 'it will be cleared, i still
hope'
[Tue Jun 05 02:12:00 2001] Ellyria tells the guild, 'it is their fault and will be
corrected'
>It doesn't take a genius to know that it's an exploit any time you have ZERO
>possibility to be on a critter's hate list but never get hurt.
Except that wasn't the case. They *were* on the hate list, they
*were* getting hurt (and killed).
Remington Stone
}*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
Please explain the difference between a 'bug' and an 'undocumented
feature'.
Hey! I can't fire arrows at things too far above/below me! Must be a
bug... in the real world, I can go much further up or down...
Hey! A monster standing directly over/under me can't summon me! Must be
an undocumented feature... Maybe he can't see me down here or something...
Maybe his magic bow of summoning has certain inherent and intended
limitations...
Next, tell me how we are to determine what 'benefits'* Verant, in their
infinite wisdom, 'intended'*, when they won't tell us and we risk being
banned for asking if it's what they 'intended' in any sort of public
forum.
Next, define 'unnatural benefits'*. Are they really trying to suggest
that Norrath has more than a passing similarity to the real world? Uhoh,
casting SoW/Levitate/any oter buff gives someone an unnatural benefit, I
better cut that right out... Things in Norrath are about as unnatural as
it's possible to get, how are we to determine which effects are 'more
unnatural enough' to count as bugs unless we're told?
Don't tell me it's common sense. If it were common sense, I could get a
GM rez for when a monster kills me through a wall and I can't fight back.
If we can't exploit, how come the MOBs can? Just once, I'd like to see
A_Lion_001 get his butt banned. :)
Hmm, common sense...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
~ Albert Einstein ~
Common sense is not so common.
~ Voltaire ~
Which is why we all always agree on what it is 'common sense' to assume is
an exploit, isn't it?
[16 Wizard] Vanlaasaa <Knights of IGF> (Dark Elf) Ayonae Ro
* starred words are referring to paragraph 12 of the Rules of Conduct at
http://everquest.station.sony.com/support/policies/conduct.jsp
Dan Day
>When people act like children it is sometimes best to treat them like
>children. If Verant's version is true, those people KNEW they were doing
>something wrong...but did it anyway.
Except that Verant's version is incorrect, they misunderstood several
tactics of the raid. Verant thought that Conquest was trying to
increase aggro on the Clerics -- they weren't, they were trying
to DECREASE aggro on the Clerics via CoH. Verant thought that
the Clerics were under the bridge to avoid being summoned -- wrong,
the Clerics *were* being summoned (and killed), the Clerics were
under the bridge to avoid the AoE spell, which is a time-honored
tactic (that's why a lot of Vox and Nagafen raids put the clerics
around the corner, not in the dragon's lair). Verant thought that
Conquest was having the Clerics chain-cast Complete Heal in order
to gain aggro -- no, the Clerics were chain-casting Resurrect
to bring the tanks back (but it has the same casting time as
CH, thus the mistake on Verant's part). Verant thought that
having the Clerics gain aggro (wrong) was keeping the mob from
hitting the tanks, when in fact the main tank (Itzlegend) was
getting the crap kicked out of him the whole fight, which was
the whole plan (keep aggro on him, not on anyone else, and keep
healing the hell out of him). Eventually enough Clerics were
summoned and killed, Itzlegend's healing couldn't keep up with the
damage being done to him, he died, and then everyone was getting
killed (and all would have died, if the GM's hadn't stepped in
at that point).
A dozen people during the Conquest/GM discussion begged Verant
to CHECK THE SERVER LOGS to verify what Conquest was telling
them, to show that Verant's snap decision about what they
thought they had seen was incorrect. This is not the behavior
of people who "KNEW they were doing something wrong".
>How do you treat a child that knows not to do something, but goes ahead &
>does it anyway?
A bigger question is, why does Verant choose to treat its player base
like children?
> You PUNISH them (assuming we're
>still allowed to punish children).
I think you're severely undercutting your credibility when you
repeatedly attempt to depict one side in this disagreement
as "children". Make your case, if you have one, or don't, but
trying to paint one side as "children" is a cheap debate
tactic.
>It's not a hard concept. Don't do something you KNOW is wrong. If you're
>level 50+ you KNOW what's wrong.
But what can one make of the fact that they *don't* believe what they
did was wrong, and still believe that Verant's version of what
happened is quite simply mistaken and based on a misunderstanding
that could be cleared up if Verant was open-minded enough
to actually LOOK at the server logs that they didn't bother to
check before waving the ban-stick?
Dan Day
>> And it's not as simple as "asking Verant first", as another
>> poster suggested. I know if I asked 10 Verant reps, I'd
>> get 10 different answers. And even if all 10 said some
>> variation of "that sounds okay to us", I could *still*
>> get screwed if a GM who happened to observe the raid
>> came to a different personal conclusion than the 10
>> I happened to ask.
>
>It's not at all difficult.
>
>Ask yourself: Is everyone at some risk? If the answer is yes, no problem.
Oh... So Root-nuking a mob is an exploit?
It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
I can't think of ANY action in the game, other than making use
of blatant pathing errors, that doesn't put everyone at "some" risk --
and that includes quite a few things that Verant has damned as
"exploits".
TwoHead
Snipped this from Brads post today...
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:04 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'not if they
nerf 3rd tomor ;( heh'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:21 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'they plan on
nerfing 3rd?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:25 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'yes tommorow
syc'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:27 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'this is our
LAST CHANCE'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:29 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'gah fuggin
BS'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:35 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'so lets make
sure we do it tonight'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:36 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'so no snare
sploit?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:39 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'nope'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:40 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'what are they
doing to 3?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:44 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'Killing snare
sploit?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:48 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'changing it
so we cant snare sploit'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:49 2001] Guildmember #5 told the guild, 'LoS! Rez!
Pathing! Agro! With our powers combine, we summon forth ITZLEGEND!'
..... reading this I have come to the opinion that they just might have
known what they were doing was wrong, not just in this case, but
habitually. Again, my opinion only, but any group of folks who use the
term "sploit" to refer to their own tactics just might be exploiting
with full knowledge of that fact.
Brad's posting of the email dialogue put my concerns of over reaction to
rest as it clearly shows that the snap judgment was fully analyzed
later. Their findings seem to still support the fact that several
factors appear to be supporting the initial call. That part about the
big guy stuck on the bridge for 15 minutes while they set up really has
a bad smell about it even if Itz claims its all innocent, especially
given that VI testers were able to duplicate that as a sticking point.
If you are just saying that you want to make sure that the innocent are
not damned then I'm with you Dan, but if you are saying these folks were
innocent, at the least I've got concerns and I think they lead to
outright disagreement.
th
Dan Day
>The conspiracy theorists are few and far between. I know that Dan Day has
>little or no respect for Verant and/or their customer service personnel, and
>he's not alone.
Sigh -- Dan, stop trying to read minds, especially mine -- you're lousy at it.
> Hell, personally I think most are probably nice in real life
>but they just don't THINK.
And that's pretty much my assessment as well. Most of them are too
young to have enough life experience to understand the complexity,
consequences, or gray areas of things that they seem to believe
are simple, black-and-white, and clear-cut. They have the common
disease of the young, the belief that they've got it all figured
out and couldn't be mistaken. And they're truly crappy at the
fine art of explaining themselves without making the problem worse.
>Bottom line, don't do stuff that you know is wrong and you should never have
>a problem with a GM.
Oh... What part of "I petitioned because it looked like something
was missing from my character and I've seen notices that we should
petition for help on stuff like that" should someone "know" is "wrong"?
They ban people for that now...
>If I understand the Conquest thing correctly, the GM's story is that
>Conquest made it so that the critter would hate the cleric the most...and
>there was no way for the critter to get to the cleric.
The problem is that this is not at all what Conquest was doing.
One could argue whether what they *were* doing was an exploit,
but the point is that Verant's version is incoherent, self-contradictory,
and absolutely denied by everyone in Conquest. It doesn't help
that Verant (actually Jeff Butler alone) came to its conclusion
within minutes, WITHOUT sitting down to examine the server
logs first and/or getting some experienced players (within Verant)
to double check the assumptions, nor even talking to the
raid members.
Conquest's guild chat during the GM discussion is full of comments like,
"why in the hell would we want to do that, it would be suicide".
They were specifically CoH'ing the Clerics so the Clerics *wouldn't*
have aggro (CoH clears aggro), even Verant acknowledges the use
of CoH, although they can't seem to grasp why it was used.
Plus, Clerics *were* being summoned and killed (Sauw and Caduseus,
perhaps others as well), which shoots down Verant's mistaken belief
that "there was no way for the critter to get to the Cleric".
Many things are unclear about this event. But one thing that
is clear is that Verant is *still* not clear on exactly what
they were watching. But they took immediate, severe action
anyway.
> EVERYONE who is over
>level 50 knows that this would be an exploit.
It might be if that's what was being done. But it wasn't.
Dan Day
>Brad's posting of the email dialogue put my concerns of over reaction to
>rest as it clearly shows that the snap judgment was fully analyzed
>later.
I just read it, and was very glad to see that a more thorough
re-evaluation was being done. I only wish they would do
such thorough investigation BEFORE taking major action like
disbanding a guild, instead of after. And it often seems to be
the case that they only do an investigation if a firestorm results,
instead of more routinely to make sure they're doing the right
thing. Large punishments should be given careful consideration.
Summary executions (and bannings are the EQ "death penalty"
for a character) are universally frowned upon in most
civilized societies. :-)
But overall, this is (now) being handled much better than
a lot of Verant's past customer-relations disasters, and I
have to give Brad a lot of credit for that.
It would do wonders if they could learn to *lead off* their
customer relations with something like the most recent
release, instead of their traditional "because we say so,
we won't even talk about it" [riot breaks out] "...um, wait,
we can explain..."
I'm especially encouraged by Brad's comment that they'll
probably reconsider how much information they release about
bans and warnings (i.e., they're going to be more forthcoming
about what tactics are considered acceptable, and which are
not). I think that's a great idea.
>That part about the
>big guy stuck on the bridge for 15 minutes while they set up really has
>a bad smell about it even if Itz claims its all innocent, especially
>given that VI testers were able to duplicate that as a sticking point.
That one doesn't bother me much -- the mob wasn't doing anything,
but then they weren't harming it, either. Lord knows I've stood
near a mob (just out of aggro range) setting up an attack before
finally yelling "charge" while it just stood there, I don't
see how this is any different. The accounts so far don't
explain why this allegedly gave any advantage, or was even
unusual behavior. "The mob stood there while they prepared
to attack it". Um, yeah, so?
Once they *did* engage the mob, it was kicking the hell out
of them.
>If you are just saying that you want to make sure that the innocent are
>not damned then I'm with you Dan, but if you are saying these folks were
>innocent, at the least I've got concerns and I think they lead to
>outright disagreement.
No, you've got it right -- before taking extreme action, Verant
(or *any* enforcement body) should make sure they do it with
"due process" and an investigation that ensures that they know
what they're actually doing. That's simple justice.
Some cases can be handled in mere minutes (clear cases of
duping, for example), but the Conquest case is a much more
complex one, dealing with issues of what exactly happened
when, intent, and judgement calls about what someone "ought"
to have considered an exploit. That necessarily takes
more time to examine properly before coming to a final
decision. And what was the big rush? Just tell them not
to do X, Y, or Z again until things get sorted out (under
threat of insta-ban for violating "probation"). It's
not like the game would collapse if they weren't
banned/suspended/disbanded the very same night.
Dark Tyger
>> >But, CQ knew it was a bug,
>>
>> Evidence, please.
Riding your quote, Dan, since my server's still being screwy...
Anyway, ask and ye shall receive. From VI's follow-up statement, which
included emailes between 1 or 2 CQ members and VI (Incidently, I am
rather impressed by how CQ handled the communication privately. Only
wish they'd waited until if/when an impasse was hit with VI before
slamming publicly...), guild member names had been edited, of course:
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:04 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'not if they nerf 3rd tomor ;( heh'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:21 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'they plan on nerfing 3rd?'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:25 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'yes tommorow syc'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:27 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'this is our LAST CHANCE'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:29 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'gah fuggin BS'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:35 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'so lets make sure we do it tonight'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:36 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'so no snare sploit?'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:39 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'nope'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:40 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'what are they doing to 3?'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:44 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'Killing snare sploit?'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:48 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'changing it so we cant snare sploit'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:49 2001] Guildmember #5 told the guild, 'LoS! Rez! Pathing! Agro! With our powers combine, we summon forth ITZLEGEND!'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:56 2001] Guildmember #6 told the guild, 'hehe'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:56 2001] Guildmember #7 told the guild, 'ROFL'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:28:57 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'we dont know that'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:00 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'its a rumor'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:09 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'i hope not sigh'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:12 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'dont go afk long'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:15 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'this isnt going to take long'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:21 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'we are just buffing healers and me'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:22 2001] Guildmember #8 told the guild, 'how would 3rd warder die then? zerg?'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:29 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'it wouldnt'
>[Mon Jun 04 20:29:39 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'not without 60 people anyways'
>
--
Dark Tyger, the slightly eccentric, railgun-toting kitty kat
Change "mindspring.com" to "knology.net" to email
=^..^=
The night is my companion...solitude my guide.
Dark Tyger
I'm doing this amazing thing called "deductive reasoning" based off
the evidence given by both sides. You should try it sometime rather
than just hopping onto the "bash VI bandwagon" that's so popular
amongst the rebel-wannabe sheep. The evidence that they were knowingly
exploiting at least 1 bug is more compelling than the evidence against
it.
Dark Tyger
>>Ask yourself: Is everyone at some risk? If the answer is yes, no problem.
>
>Oh... So Root-nuking a mob is an exploit?
No. Root breaks. Root is resisted frequently in some cases. Casters
can still hit you.
I take it you've never played heavily with root-nuking...
David Goldberg
Seems like the definition of any "exploit" is that it's an exploit
of a bug. So seems like by definition any exploit is capable of being
fixed.
Dark Tyger
>Dark Tyger said:
>}*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
>
>Please explain the difference between a 'bug' and an 'undocumented
>feature'.
Simple: Is it an intentional feature. A "bug" is something that is a
coding error. An "undocumented feature" is something that was
intentionally coded in.
Jeff Hoppe
Do you live in the middle of a Corn Field Rem?
Jeff
"Remington Stone" <ez06...@logan.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9g3hh9$47p$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
TwoHead
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:01:26 -0700, TwoHead <t...@2omar2world2.com> wrote:
> >Brad's posting of the email dialogue put my concerns of over reaction to
> >rest as it clearly shows that the snap judgment was fully analyzed
> >later.
>
> I just read it, and was very glad to see that a more thorough
> re-evaluation was being done. I only wish they would do
> such thorough investigation BEFORE taking major action like
> disbanding a guild, instead of after. And it often seems to be
> the case that they only do an investigation if a firestorm results,
> instead of more routinely to make sure they're doing the right
> thing. Large punishments should be given careful consideration.
> Summary executions (and bannings are the EQ "death penalty"
> for a character) are universally frowned upon in most
> civilized societies. :-)
>
> But overall, this is (now) being handled much better than
> a lot of Verant's past customer-relations disasters, and I
> have to give Brad a lot of credit for that.
It does actually seem as though they are learning from previous issues
that coming out with information is better than being too quiet. In
cases like these I'd say that waiting until a final decision has been
reached and then making a statement that includes as much info as this
one does really makes their case well for them. I don't think they
should make info public till they've concluded their investigations, but
in a high profile case like this if you say nothing the feeling is that
something is hidden. With the facts out there at least people can judge
them on the merit of those facts.
> >That part about the
> >big guy stuck on the bridge for 15 minutes while they set up really has
> >a bad smell about it even if Itz claims its all innocent, especially
> >given that VI testers were able to duplicate that as a sticking point.
>
> That one doesn't bother me much -- the mob wasn't doing anything,
> but then they weren't harming it, either. Lord knows I've stood
> near a mob (just out of aggro range) setting up an attack before
> finally yelling "charge" while it just stood there, I don't
> see how this is any different. The accounts so far don't
> explain why this allegedly gave any advantage, or was even
> unusual behavior. "The mob stood there while they prepared
> to attack it". Um, yeah, so?
>
> Once they *did* engage the mob, it was kicking the hell out
> of them.
>
My problem would not be that they were close to the mob but not
attacked, it was that they maneuvered the mob there and either got it
stuck on the terrain or held it with agro from a non dangrous spot while
they set up for the fight. From the info VI released and the commentary
in reply from Cq it appears that they were doing one or the other and
either is an exploit in my eyes.
th
d...@badplace.net
:>That part about the
:>big guy stuck on the bridge for 15 minutes while they set up really has
:>a bad smell about it even if Itz claims its all innocent, especially
:>given that VI testers were able to duplicate that as a sticking point.
: That one doesn't bother me much -- the mob wasn't doing anything,
: but then they weren't harming it, either. Lord knows I've stood
: near a mob (just out of aggro range) setting up an attack before
: finally yelling "charge" while it just stood there, I don't
: see how this is any different. The accounts so far don't
: explain why this allegedly gave any advantage, or was even
: unusual behavior. "The mob stood there while they prepared
: to attack it". Um, yeah, so?
From what I read he aggroed the mob, and then went under the bridge,
knowing the mob would get stuck. According to Verant the mob wanted to
get at TWO people but could not.
Man, I can think lots of situations where I would like a mobs stuck
somewhere while I set up, this is a huge advantage and very different
from a mob being where Verant put it. Since they were using other
exploits like rez effect I would expect some time moving bodies an
setting that up.
: Once they *did* engage the mob, it was kicking the hell out
: of them.
Irrelevant, cheating and loosing, and cheating and winning, are two
sides of the same coin.
-Michael
Jeff Hoppe
<d...@badplace.net> wrote in message
news:g7sV6.12563$Dd5.3...@ruti.visi.com...
>
> Irrelevant, cheating and loosing, and cheating and winning, are two
> sides of the same coin.
I was in a courtroom listening to a convicted man explain to a judge that he
didn't feel he should be sent to prison for selling cocaine because for the
past two and a half years, he barely made any money at it.
When the Judge asked. "Well then tell me, sir, how much money did you make
off selling cocaine for the last two and a half years?"
The look on the convicts face was PRICELESS.
BTW he got 6 and half years...
Jeff
Dan Day
>d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
>
>>>Ask yourself: Is everyone at some risk? If the answer is yes, no problem.
>>
>>Oh... So Root-nuking a mob is an exploit?
>
>No. Root breaks. Root is resisted frequently in some cases. Casters
>can still hit you.
>
>I take it you've never played heavily with root-nuking...
Read the rest of my post, wherein I state that as far as
I know all tactics in the game entail "some" risk, then try again.
Jerome Chan
Dark Tyger <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> d...@firstnethou.com (Dan Day) wrote:
>
> >>Ask yourself: Is everyone at some risk? If the answer is yes, no problem.
> >
> >Oh... So Root-nuking a mob is an exploit?
>
> No. Root breaks. Root is resisted frequently in some cases. Casters
> can still hit you.
>
> I take it you've never played heavily with root-nuking...
Root. Nuke with 2 casters on 1. Each take turns rooting. Two enchanters
could take out a mob easily with no problems.
Celaeno
>..... reading this I have come to the opinion that they just might have
>known what they were doing was wrong, not just in this case, but
>habitually. Again, my opinion only, but any group of folks who use the
>term "sploit" to refer to their own tactics just might be exploiting
>with full knowledge of that fact.
I just read the emails on Lum, and what irks me is that the official
reaction was scaled up so dramatically. People use geography at Naggy
and Vox and virtually never get their fingers slapped (on that matter,
it seems stupid to have dragons in a cave, with tunnels they can't get
to, and NOT be allowed to use that to prevent the dragon from getting
to you (not that I've ever seen a dragon lair)) they used stacking
spells on other uberdragons before with no reaction other than seeing
the spell stacking altered a couple of days later, they know other
guilds do the same thing, they use these tactics on an even bigger mob
and are losing - and instead of the stacking effect being removed the
next day, being warned about the terrain exploit or told to leave the
zone, boom! Suspensions, 2 players banned, and no more guild.
Disbanding the guild seems especially wrong to me.
Quoth Brad: "And it remains our opinion that exploiting these types of
encounters severely cheapens the game experience for others. So we
came down pretty hard on you all."
Punishing Conquest like this has cheapened the game experience for me
much more than even a successful exploiting fight against the 4th
warder ever could have done, whether or not I'll actually ever see the
inside of a place like ST.
Celaeno Duskwalker
Fier'dal druid of Erollisi Marr
Remington Stone
}ez06...@logan.ucdavis.edu (Remington Stone) wrote:
}>Dark Tyger said:
}>}*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
}>Please explain the difference between a 'bug' and an 'undocumented
}>feature'.
}Simple: Is it an intentional feature. A "bug" is something that is a
}coding error. An "undocumented feature" is something that was
}intentionally coded in.
Ahh, I see, so you went back and read the comments in the proprietary
source code in order to make this determination? And naturally, you
expect that all members of Conquest were familiar with the intentions of
the coders?
Allow me to rephrase the question: Please explain how a player is to
determine whether a feature of the world they encounter is a 'bug' or an
'undocumented feature'.
I've heard several people say 'ask verant'. I've tried that technique.
The answer I've usually gotten amounts to 'You should know'. Umm... how?
[17 Wizard] Vanlaasaa <Knights of IGF> (Dark Elf) Ayonae Ro
Remington Stone
}Man! there is so many strawmen here, I must ask....
Well, I don't see it that way. To me, they look like legitimate arguments
that deserve answers. Many are phrased somewhat sarcastically. But the
fact of the matter is, if I do something, and the game responds in a
certain way, I add that to my experience of how the game works. To me, it
is a feature of the game. The only way I could tell that the game was not
_intended_ to work that way for absolute certain is to have the programmer
or some representative thereof, ie Verant, _tell_ me that that is not what
was intended. Especially since they have said they indended for MOBs to
be able to attack through walls. MY instincts and common sense would have
said that was clearly a bug. Therefore, it is obvious that trying to use
my instincts and common sense to differentiate between 'bugs' and
'undocumented features' is not a workable solution. However, to date,
Verant has said that they will not tell us what's what unless they slip
up (so there's no point in asking), and it says in the RoC that we are
specifically not to discuss it with anyone. So basically, there's no way
to tell. As far as I can tell, the only thing that's absolutely
guaranteed not to be an exploit is sitting quietly somewhere. But I'm not
going to advance in the game very far doing that.
Various people have suggested some rules of thumb. A fairly good one
seems to be the idea that if you gain an advantage and are at no risk,
then it's exploiting. Now. Assume I go into an encounter. How am I to
know for certain that I am at risk or not at risk? There's a huge number
of variables to contend with. Take the specific Conquest example of the
warder on the bridge. How do they know, for certain, that the mob is
completely stuck? How do they know that some pathing bug isn't going to
snap and suddenly teleport the dragon to the bottom of the bridge? They
can make a fairly educated guess that that won't happen, but they _can't_
know for sure. Not even if it worked last time. They may have gotten
lucky and the risk may not have come to fruition. That's what risk is all
about. A _chance_ that something bad will happen. But you can't know for
certain, just because something bad didn't happen once, or even six times,
that nothing bad will happen. So you pretty much have to assume you're
still at risk.
Similarly, I can go into an encounter with a green/safe con mob, and make
a fairly educated guess that I am at no risk. The con even tells me
so! The mob may even drop something exceedingly valuable, like Pyzjin,
hence I derive an advantage. Is fighting Pyzjin therefore an exploit? I
sure hope not. I guess one could argue that there's the 'risk' she won't
drop the friggin' GBS... Or the risk of dying of boredom waiting for her
to spawn... :)
}Do you live in the middle of a Corn Field Rem?
Well, they do grow a lot of corn in this county, yes. How is that
relevant? A straw man argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of your
opponent's views. I have explained Verant's views exactly as I hear them.
If Verant feels I am misrepresenting their views, I would be glad to hear
that.
[17 Wizard] Vanlaasaa <Knights of IGF> (Dark Elf) Ayonae Ro
TwoHead
> Allow me to rephrase the question: Please explain how a player is to
> determine whether a feature of the world they encounter is a 'bug' or an
> 'undocumented feature'.
>
> I've heard several people say 'ask verant'. I've tried that technique.
> The answer I've usually gotten amounts to 'You should know'. Umm... how?
>
> [17 Wizard] Vanlaasaa <Knights of IGF> (Dark Elf) Ayonae Ro
If you agro a mob of that level and are still untouched 15 minutes later
you just may be using an invalid tactic. Not a hard and fast rule, but
its something to start with. If you need more hints, here is one I use
to explain how you can tell if you are exploiting pathing. If the mob
moves away from you to get closer, you may well be in a position that is
exploiting the pathing. If you repeatedly move between two spots
causing a mob to run back and forth in an attempt to reach you and then
moving back again so that it never reaches you, then you are
exploiting. These are two simple examples of how common sense can help
you to know if you are or aren't exploiting. They don't cover all
cases, but they provide an example of how anyone can use their own
common sense to tell the difference.
Of course a true exploiter will tell you now and forever that it just
looked like he was intentionally exploiting pathing for hours, killing
mob after mob while never taking a single point of damage. Cheaters
disable their common sense along with their ethics before logging in and
so are pretty much unaware that they are cheating. That goes a long way
towards explaining why the Cq folks seem so genuinely shocked to find
out that their "sploits" got them in trouble.
th
Red Celt
<dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>ez06...@logan.ucdavis.edu (Remington Stone) wrote:
>
>>Dark Tyger said:
>>}*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
>>
>>Please explain the difference between a 'bug' and an 'undocumented
>>feature'.
>
>Simple: Is it an intentional feature. A "bug" is something that is a
>coding error. An "undocumented feature" is something that was
>intentionally coded in.
LOL!
Jesus, I wish all my users were like you, DT.
Kelteh
hughes
> you just may be using an invalid tactic. Not a hard and fast rule, but
> its something to start with. If you need more hints, here is one I use
> to explain how you can tell if you are exploiting pathing. If the mob
> moves away from you to get closer, you may well be in a position that is
> exploiting the pathing. If you repeatedly move between two spots
> causing a mob to run back and forth in an attempt to reach you and then
> moving back again so that it never reaches you, then you are
> exploiting. These are two simple examples of how common sense can help
> you to know if you are or aren't exploiting. They don't cover all
> cases, but they provide an example of how anyone can use their own
> common sense to tell the difference.
In cazic thule you can stand in certain places and nuke mobs to death
without ever being in any danger of dying . Certain blue to 60th gypsies
just stand still and take it if you nuke or use a bow at extreme range .
Certain guards can not hit you if you are standing on a wall . These are
exploits since you gain a tangible benefit at NO risk .
In karnors castle there is a place where you can hop hop in the water
and back into the castle and make every mob move through the castle to get
to you . Not only can you thus train every mob around clearing out the pcs
quickly , you also cannot be killed and have enough time to retreat after
doing it . This is an exploited pathing bug that matters.
Conquest FAILED which means that not only was there risk there was
plenty of it .
Dark Tyger
You are rather amusing. Desperate to fling a barb, but can't find
anything real to fling it about, so you resort to non-specific
bashing.
Dark Tyger
I'm not responding to the rest of the post. I'm responding to your
pathetic choice of comparisons.
Dark Tyger
>Dark Tyger said:
>}ez06...@logan.ucdavis.edu (Remington Stone) wrote:
>}>Dark Tyger said:
>}>}*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
>}>Please explain the difference between a 'bug' and an 'undocumented
>}>feature'.
>}Simple: Is it an intentional feature. A "bug" is something that is a
>}coding error. An "undocumented feature" is something that was
>}intentionally coded in.
>
>Ahh, I see, so you went back and read the comments in the proprietary
>source code in order to make this determination? And naturally, you
>expect that all members of Conquest were familiar with the intentions of
>the coders?
>
>Allow me to rephrase the question: Please explain how a player is to
>determine whether a feature of the world they encounter is a 'bug' or an
>'undocumented feature'.
Generally common sense. If you find a place to stand where a mob's
pathing will never bring it to you when it's aggroed on you when
there's no logical reason for it not to be able to, it's obviously a
bug. (The POD by Kelethin is like this. I watched an enchanter sit in
a spot with his pet beating on the POD's back while it dashed back and
forth in an arc, never turning to attack the pet and never reaching
the chanter. No, the POD wasn't feared.) If a summoning mob is not
successfully summoning you when it should, you've found a bug.
If it's reasonably unclear, people tend to get off with a warning. My
understanding of the situation with CQ and the /gu transcripts
indicate they knew that the "tactics" they were using exploited bugs.
Remington Stone
}TwoHead said:
}> If you agro a mob of that level and are still untouched 15 minutes later
}> you just may be using an invalid tactic. Not a hard and fast rule, but
}> its something to start with.
Well, it might be a start, for one class of bug...
I feel I should point out that I never intended this thread to progress in
this manner, and I'm truly sorry if that similarly has unintended
consequences. But I feel I must point out that Twohead, hughes and DT
have all violated Rule 12 of the Rules of Conduct posted on the
everquest.com website, to wit:
"you will not communicate the existence of any such exploitable bug
(bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits in game),
either directly or through public posting, to any other user of
EverQuest."
I'm sorry. Good luck, guys. I know it's only a bug that pretty much
everyone has a nodding familiarity with, now that Verant has slipped
and mentioned it in the Conquest brouhaha, but a rule is a rule, isn't it?
And this is also specifically why I'd like to see this policy _seriously_
revised.
I must also say that I can think of instances where the TwoHead rule of
thumb above may be innacurate, and may lead one to dangerous conclusions.
But I won't discuss that further. I like my account. I've endangered it
enough for the sake of argument.
But I will note that this part Verant never really said was necessarily an
exploit... They almost even said it was all right, if they were not
simultaneously using a method to build up aggro on the warrior. But of
course, that comes down to _my_ interpretation of Brad's words, and Brad
may not be the final authority on this.
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>Red Celt <sp...@redcelt.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:19:43 -0500, Dark Tyger
>><dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Simple: Is it an intentional feature. A "bug" is something that is a
>>>coding error. An "undocumented feature" is something that was
>>>intentionally coded in.
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>Jesus, I wish all my users were like you, DT.
>
>You are rather amusing. Desperate to fling a barb, but can't find
>anything real to fling it about, so you resort to non-specific
>bashing.
If I'm not mistaken, hasn't Celt KF'd you like a half dozen times
(including one about a week ago)?
Red Celt
wrote:
>
>"Zach the Moose" <zachth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
>
>The conspiracy theorists are few and far between. I know that Dan Day has
>little or no respect for Verant and/or their customer service personnel, and
>he's not alone. Hell, personally I think most are probably nice in real life
>but they just don't THINK.
So. In summary; people who don't respect Verant don't THINK. Is that
what you're saying? And you wonder why you've gained a label as a VAK?
What about people who respect and praise Verant on some issues, but
condemn them on others, where they feel it is justified? Are they only
occasional THINKers?
>Bottom line, don't do stuff that you know is wrong and you should never have
>a problem with a GM. Quite honestly they have more important stuff to do
>(or at least a lot of minor stuff) than eyeing someone not petitioned.
Such as going around dealing with petitions on names... and other
urgently important stuff like that?
>If I understand the Conquest thing correctly,
You don't.
You've already stated that "The whole story bores me to
tears". I bet I know where the boredom set in. Immediately between
reading VI's version of events and CQ's version. After all, mustn't
cloud the issue with pesky little things like both sides of the story,
must we?
>the GM's story is that
>Conquest made it so that the critter would hate the cleric the most...and
>there was no way for the critter to get to the cleric.
Wrong on both counts. Read some of Dan Day's posts. I, too, read the
entire log after they were summoned to the Arena. It was tragic to see
the transcript of a guild's death... and the prospect of suspensions
and/or bannings. All before a detailed analysis of the logs and the
raid's actions was fully understood by VI.
>EVERYONE who is over
>level 50 knows that this would be an exploit.
This isn't what they were doing.
>Whether this is the action of a bunch of assholes in a guild or a rogue
>GM has no affect on you, the average player.
Of course it does! Unless your definition of "average player" means
someone who will never raid places with an "uber mob"... no matter how
long they play.
I'd rather like to know what is and what is not a bannable offence
*before* I commit it, rather than after. Verant show zero consistency
on this issue, and need just this kind of player backlash from the EQ
community from time to time when their actions are suspect.
In this case, their actions are suspect.
Kelteh
Red Celt
<dark...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Richard Melvin <rme...@radm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <vkd8itscdlb3t5ijm...@4ax.com>, Dark Tyger
>><dark...@mindspring.com> writes
>>>
>>>*Sigh* THEY WEREN'T USING TACTICS, THEY WERE ABUSING BUGS.
>>>
>>>There. Did I still use too many syllables? Or do you not grasp the
>>>glaringly obvious difference?
>>
>>And you know this how?
>>
>>I play a high level character on Lanys, I know several Conquest members,
>>and I've read a lot of message board and newsgroup posts about it.
>>
>>And I don't know whether Conquest:
>>
>>- were deliberately exploiting a bug
>>
>>- were accidentally getting benefit from a bug without realising it.
>>
>>- were unaffected by a bug which may or may not exist at that spot.
>>
>>So, do you work for Verant? Or were you one of the 26 players in zone?
>>Or are you talking out of your ass?
>
>I'm doing this amazing thing called "deductive reasoning"
That *would* be amazing for you.
> based off the evidence given by both sides.
Ah. Well, that's where you made your mistake; Try basing it *on* the
evidence, rather than *off*.
>You should try it sometime rather
>than just hopping onto the "bash VI bandwagon" that's so popular
Says DT hopping onto the VAK bandwagon....
>amongst the rebel-wannabe sheep.
You? YOU of *all* people, accusing others of being sheep!? ROFLMAO
>The evidence that they were knowingly exploiting at least 1 bug
Which bug?
>is more compelling than the evidence against it.
Kelteh
Crying Freeman
Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:3b273de3...@news.earthlink.net...
> >You are rather amusing. Desperate to fling a barb, but can't find
> >anything real to fling it about, so you resort to non-specific
> >bashing.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, hasn't Celt KF'd you like a half dozen times
> (including one about a week ago)?
Cant' say I've followed all the threads but I doubt RC has filtered anyone,
it's normally the other way around.
CF
StanMann
That is correct, He "HATES" gaps in his threads.
StanMann
--
OK, I have tremendous admiration for someone who goes to the trouble of
learning American English when it isn't their native tongue, but there
is
precious little that is funnier than someone cursing in English when
they
aren't completely fluent in it. It's made even funnier when they're
apopleptic with rage, as Arnaud here is.--Brandon Blackmoor
Dan Harmon
"Dan Day" <d...@firstnethou.com> wrote in message
news:3b28484d....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> The problem is that this is not at all what Conquest was doing.
> One could argue whether what they *were* doing was an exploit,
> but the point is that Verant's version is incoherent, self-contradictory,
> and absolutely denied by everyone in Conquest. It doesn't help
> that Verant (actually Jeff Butler alone) came to its conclusion
> within minutes, WITHOUT sitting down to examine the server
> logs first and/or getting some experienced players (within Verant)
> to double check the assumptions, nor even talking to the
> raid members.
Where'd you read this? I'd like to take a gander at it myself.
Dark Tyger
>>I'm doing this amazing thing called "deductive reasoning"
>
>That *would* be amazing for you.
>
>> based off the evidence given by both sides.
>
>Ah. Well, that's where you made your mistake; Try basing it *on* the
>evidence, rather than *off*.
Really the act of a desperate troll arguing semantics.
>>You should try it sometime rather
>>than just hopping onto the "bash VI bandwagon" that's so popular
>
>Says DT hopping onto the VAK bandwagon....
Note I have made zero effort to defend the fact that there were the
bugs nor have I tried to come out against the claims that the zone was
incomplete. The only thing I've come out against has been CQ's claims
that they were doing nothing wrong by knowingly exploiting bugs and
spreading obvious misinformation.
>>amongst the rebel-wannabe sheep.
>
>You? YOU of *all* people, accusing others of being sheep!? ROFLMAO
*Chuckle* It's okay, Cragie. You don't have to take such desperate
stretches.
>>The evidence that they were knowingly exploiting at least 1 bug
>
>Which bug?
Buff/rez effect stacking and AOEs... Also something with snare, though
I don't understand the effects of it fully. /gu logs showed
conversations about how they "better use it now" before it was fixed.
Dark Tyger
>>>Jesus, I wish all my users were like you, DT.
>>
>>You are rather amusing. Desperate to fling a barb, but can't find
>>anything real to fling it about, so you resort to non-specific
>>bashing.
>
>If I'm not mistaken, hasn't Celt KF'd you like a half dozen times
>(including one about a week ago)?
Nah, I think he's of the "Killfiles are for wimps" camp, furthering
his position of a worthless troll. He seems to have at least
temporarily stopped shifting posting ID's, so I might accomplish
something by KFing him for a while myself...
Brandon Blackmoor
news:GuEV6.410$aV1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> In cazic thule you can stand in certain places and nuke mobs to death
> without ever being in any danger of dying .
Where is this, precisely? I have a character who will be spending a lot of
time in Cazic-Thule soon, and this would be be good information to know --
and it's exactly the sort of information a real adventurer would take into
consideration when exploring a dangerous area.
bblac...@blackgate.net
13 June 2001
Dark Tyger
...except when you consider the fact that the real monsters aren't
restricted by bad pathing code.
Red Celt
<fre...@108dragons.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:3b273de3...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>> >You are rather amusing. Desperate to fling a barb, but can't find
>> >anything real to fling it about, so you resort to non-specific
>> >bashing.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, hasn't Celt KF'd you like a half dozen times
>> (including one about a week ago)?
Nope. Matt... that was you. DT has never been KFed by me. Not because
I value anything he has to say; rather he is such a lightweight that
an occasional swat is sufficient.
>Cant' say I've followed all the threads but I doubt RC has filtered anyone,
>it's normally the other way around.
Oh I do have entries in my KF. All of them are incapable of logical
and reasoned debate. They tend to go "You're an idiot/moron/troll"
rather than address the content of my posts... after a while I get fed
up with people who have nothing useful to say.
I had about 8 in there at one point... then decided to have an amnesty
when Ron A Green's personal life was laid bare for all to see. I
wanted to laugh at Bizbee's pathetic protestations about how
un-concerned he was that his precious privacy had been destroyed.
I thought; fuckit, if Bizbee is coming out of the KF, they may as well
all come out.
Bizbee soon went back in (quel surprise) and he's been joined by maybe
1 or 2 others. Matt included.
Kelteh
Moldy Oldie
Red Celt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:04:15 GMT, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Zach the Moose" <zachth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >The conspiracy theorists are few and far between. I know that Dan Day has
> >little or no respect for Verant and/or their customer service personnel, and
> >he's not alone. Hell, personally I think most are probably nice in real life
> >but they just don't THINK.
>
> So. In summary; people who don't respect Verant don't THINK. Is that
> what you're saying? And you wonder why you've gained a label as a VAK?
Um, are we having a bit of trouble with our reading comprehension?
Those who "don't THINK" in Zach's post are rather clearly Verant's CS
employees. It appears that you really are just another troll with an
overlarge agro radius...
>
<snip>
Moldy Oldie
A fine ripe cheese, or a patch of mildew in the shower stall, YOU
decide.
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:00:38 +0100, "Crying Freeman"
><fre...@108dragons.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>Matt Frisch <matu...@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b273de3...@news.earthlink.net...
>>
>>> >You are rather amusing. Desperate to fling a barb, but can't find
>>> >anything real to fling it about, so you resort to non-specific
>>> >bashing.
>>>
>>> If I'm not mistaken, hasn't Celt KF'd you like a half dozen times
>>> (including one about a week ago)?
>>Cant' say I've followed all the threads but I doubt RC has filtered anyone,
>>it's normally the other way around.
>
>Oh I do have entries in my KF. All of them are incapable of logical
>and reasoned debate. They tend to go "You're an idiot/moron/troll"
>rather than address the content of my posts...
If you actually had something besides idiotic, moronic trolls to
contribute, this might stop happening.
But I do understand that the truth hurts.
hughes
> time in Cazic-Thule soon, and this would be be good information to know --
> and it's exactly the sort of information a real adventurer would take into
> consideration when exploring a dangerous area.
heh i assumed pretty much everyone knew where this was . It is a 2 year old
bug and there is almost always a group sitting in the safe spot . If you
happen to actually not know I suggest wandering around the dungeon invis
untill you find where groups are camping, then watch them .
Dan Day
>> The problem is that this is not at all what Conquest was doing.
>> One could argue whether what they *were* doing was an exploit,
>> but the point is that Verant's version is incoherent, self-contradictory,
>> and absolutely denied by everyone in Conquest. It doesn't help
>> that Verant (actually Jeff Butler alone) came to its conclusion
>> within minutes, WITHOUT sitting down to examine the server
>> logs first and/or getting some experienced players (within Verant)
>> to double check the assumptions, nor even talking to the
>> raid members.
>
>Where'd you read this? I'd like to take a gander at it myself.
Conquest posted the whole GM/guild conversation, it went on
for over an hour. I've got it bookmarked on my laptop, which
isn't booted up right now, but I'll post the URL when it is.
If I forget, /poke me.
Red Celt
<forg...@spamfree.net> wrote:
>
>
>Red Celt wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:04:15 GMT, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Zach the Moose" <zachth...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9a061af1.01061...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >The conspiracy theorists are few and far between. I know that Dan Day has
>> >little or no respect for Verant and/or their customer service personnel, and
>> >he's not alone. Hell, personally I think most are probably nice in real life
>> >but they just don't THINK.
>>
>> So. In summary; people who don't respect Verant don't THINK. Is that
>> what you're saying? And you wonder why you've gained a label as a VAK?
>
>Um, are we having a bit of trouble with our reading comprehension?
Well, when you say "we", if that is inclusive of me, then no. If it
excludes me, and includes you, then yes. You *are* having a bit of
trouble with your reading comprehension.
>Those who "don't THINK" in Zach's post
It wasn't Zach's post. It was a poorly attributed posting by Dan
Harmon; Verant Arse Kisser.
>are rather clearly Verant's CS employees.
Well, it can't be that clear, otherwise you'd realise that he's
talking about people like Dan Day.
Let's talk you through it, shall we?
>> >The conspiracy theorists are few and far between.
Here, he's referring to people who see Verant/SOE as some dark
malevolent force out to screw over their customers.
>> >I know that Dan Day has little or no respect for Verant and/or their customer service personnel,
Here (as per usual) DH is presumptious enough to state that he knows
how DD thinks. He reckons that DD is a Verant-knocker... because he
isn't a VAK, and of course there are no inbetweens with DH.
>> >and he's not alone.
Here, DH makes reference to others who shamelessly have the nerve to
make so much as a single critical comment about Verant.
>> >Hell, personally I think most are probably nice in real life but they just don't THINK.
And finally, here DH sums up DD and everyone else who has little or no
respect for Verant.
Wasn't so hard was it? DH is a commited VAK. He's as likely to suggest
that Verant employees "just don't THINK" as you are of ever getting a
clue.
>It appears that you really are just another troll with an
>overlarge agro radius...
It appears that you've just contributed to my theory that those who
label me as a troll do so due to cognitive difficulties.
Kelteh
Davian
Dan Harmon <deha...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:0zKV6.949$Kq4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
http://lumthemad.net/story.php?story=2083
Jason Burgoyne
Touches every PC in the zone every 30 seconds. Things that make Cazic made
include killing his ubber minion that you need to kill before attacking Cazic
himself.
JB
Matt Frisch
scribed into the ether:
>If you are standing anywhere in the Plane of Fear and make Cazic mad, he Death
>Touches every PC in the zone every 30 seconds. Things that make Cazic made
>include killing his ubber minion that you need to kill before attacking Cazic
>himself.
Two things:
1) Cazic thule does not death touch anyone under any circumstances anymore
2) He is talking about the ZONE, not the mob.
Kilmir
straight and never capable of getting to the target. Not sure what they
could have done in that time, but it sure as hell indicates a pathing bag or
safe spot.
But even setting the whole exploit or not issue aside, VI still overreacted
by banning players and destroying the guild without giving a warning first.
That alone puts VI in a desrespectfull position, and that's what CQ is
trying to get as an official statement at the moment (if I may read between
the lines of Itzlegends' emails).
Kilmir, who's glad he's only experienced positive re-/actions of GM's and VI
since his start at christmas 2000.
"Dan Day" <d...@firstnethou.com> wrote in message
news:3b2528e8....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:17:48 GMT, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
<snip lengthy post>
Kilmir
bashing me on the way. I knew the mobs do odd things near the entrance so
when I got there I immediately moved to one of the walls. the mob ran too
far, ran to the wall, ran from the wall again, and backtracked to get to me.
While he backtracked I rushed to it's previous spot at the wall so it had to
repeat the process. I kept this up until a pasing group put me out of my
misery.
This whole time I had just 1 sliver of health left so if I ran to the zone I
would most certainly have died.
I know it's a bug, I know I haven't reported it (assuming they know, because
EVERY player knows the pathing is terrible in CB) and I consciously used the
bug to my advantage.
Looks like I might get banned soon and my guild disbanded :(
Kilmir
------------------------------
Rhand <Leader of Destiny's Shadow>, lvl 30 HIE Mage, Vazaelle
"TwoHead" <t...@2omar2world2.com> wrote in message
news:3B26A1F8...@2omar2world2.com...
<snip>
> If the mob
> moves away from you to get closer, you may well be in a position that is
> exploiting the pathing. If you repeatedly move between two spots
> causing a mob to run back and forth in an attempt to reach you and then
> moving back again so that it never reaches you, then you are
> exploiting.
<snip>
Sergey Dashevskiy
says...
> Well, according to VI and some logs the guardian was aggroed for 15 minutes
> straight and never capable of getting to the target. Not sure what they
> could have done in that time, but it sure as hell indicates a pathing bag or
> safe spot.
So every time when Vox is aggroed while the raiding party is buffing (no
she can't get to the prep-room), everyone in the party should start
fighting instantly or be suspended?
Let me clarify that -- this situation happens in about 50% of the pickup
raids
> But even setting the whole exploit or not issue aside, VI still overreacted
> by banning players and destroying the guild without giving a warning first.
Absolutely. Giving them a warning, and explaining why VI thinks that
strategies allowed on antonican dragons are not allowed in Sleeper's
Tomb would be more than enough in my opinion.
> That alone puts VI in a desrespectfull position, and that's what CQ is
> trying to get as an official statement at the moment (if I may read between
> the lines of Itzlegends' emails).
Moreso, Brad admitted that their logs don't provide them with the full
description of the situation. They have to guess most of it, and then
suspend/ban people based on their guesses
> Kilmir, who's glad he's only experienced positive re-/actions of GM's and VI
> since his start at christmas 2000.
>
>
> "Dan Day" <d...@firstnethou.com> wrote in message
> news:3b2528e8....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:17:48 GMT, "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip lengthy post>
>
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dan Harmon
"Davian" <spam.som...@home.com> wrote in message
news:qD5W6.77671$DG1.12...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
I happened to have read this myself yesterday (I got behind on LTM news). I
didn't think this is what he was talking about because I strongly disagree
with his conclusion.
Brad didn't know that the summon time was. He goofed. Didn't see that as a
big deal. So far in every encounter with summoning critters being summoned
was no big deal. I suppose it's possible that extremely high end critters
are different but I've never been killed as a result of being summoned
(enchanter) in critters up to the low 60s.
I saw nothing that indicated that Jeff Butler was in charge of meting out
punishment, nor did I see anywhere that indicated he was the only witness or
the only one investigating the allegations. But perhaps I missed it...if
so, please quote it (link left in as a convenience).
Brad quoted guild chat showing damned strong evidence that they knew they
were doing something wrong. Looking at the log also indicates (to me) that
it's a guild full of d00ds and their adamant protestations that they didn't
MEAN "exploit" when they said "sploit" simply doesn't hold a hell of a lot
of water with me.
Leathergoddess can adamantly protest and claim that he's not an idiot, but
that doesn't make it true. Pres Bush can adamantly claim he gives a shit
about anything but Big Oil, but that doesn't make it true either.
Verant posted letters with CQ's permission. I think this is about as close
to the 'whole story' as we're likely to get, and though I think Verant
overreacted I don't feel sorry for CQ at all. They're claiming that they're
too stupid to know what's an exploit. If that's the case, un-ban the two
people. If they claim some intelligence, leave them banned.
Sergey Dashevskiy
deha...@bigfoot.com says...
> Brad quoted guild chat showing damned strong evidence that they knew they
> were doing something wrong. Looking at the log also indicates (to me) that
> it's a guild full of d00ds and their adamant protestations that they didn't
> MEAN "exploit" when they said "sploit" simply doesn't hold a hell of a lot
> of water with me.
>
There may be a degree of exaggeration and sarcasm going in the guild
channel. When a guildmate of mine said "If I lose this rool again, I
will poison your goats", I think it was meant to be taken as a joke, not
a threat. It's a game. People may not always be serious talking to their
friends in it
TwoHead
>
> OMFG, I've been exploiting in CB when I was lvl 9. A lego was chasing me and
> bashing me on the way. I knew the mobs do odd things near the entrance so
> when I got there I immediately moved to one of the walls. the mob ran too
> far, ran to the wall, ran from the wall again, and backtracked to get to me.
> While he backtracked I rushed to it's previous spot at the wall so it had to
> repeat the process. I kept this up until a pasing group put me out of my
> misery.
> This whole time I had just 1 sliver of health left so if I ran to the zone I
> would most certainly have died.
>
> I know it's a bug, I know I haven't reported it (assuming they know, because
> EVERY player knows the pathing is terrible in CB) and I consciously used the
> bug to my advantage.
>
> Looks like I might get banned soon and my guild disbanded :(
>
> Kilmir
>
> ------------------------------
> Rhand <Leader of Destiny's Shadow>, lvl 30 HIE Mage, Vazaelle
>
Yup, that is exactly what exploiting pathing is. Now if you want to
avoid being banned and disbanded and any other sort of 'eds I'd advise
you to hustle over to CB and let an orc kill you to make up for it.
They might let you slide if you show remorse and make restitution <EG>.
th
Dan Harmon
"Sergey Dashevskiy" <xi...@tcimet.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1593edf5b...@news.newsfeeds.com...
> There may be a degree of exaggeration and sarcasm going in the guild
> channel. When a guildmate of mine said "If I lose this rool again, I
> will poison your goats", I think it was meant to be taken as a joke, not
> a threat. It's a game. People may not always be serious talking to their
> friends in it
I agree completely, though I don't really see how that has to do with the
guild chat quoted below. It's as obvious to me as it is to Brad that they
knew they were exploiting. But I fully admit some bias as I don't have
patience with 14 year olds who talk like 14 year olds.
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:04 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'not if they nerf
3rd tomor ;( heh'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:21 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'they plan on
nerfing 3rd?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:25 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'yes tommorow syc'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:27 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'this is our LAST
CHANCE'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:29 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'gah fuggin BS'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:35 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'so lets make sure
we do it tonight'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:36 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'so no snare
sploit?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:39 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'nope'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:40 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'what are they
doing to 3?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:44 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'Killing snare
sploit?'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:48 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'changing it so we
cant snare sploit'
[Mon Jun 04 20:28:49 2001] Guildmember #5 told the guild, 'LoS! Rez!
Pathing! Agro! With our powers combine, we summon forth ITZLEGEND!'
Remington Stone
}I agree completely, though I don't really see how that has to do with the
}guild chat quoted below. It's as obvious to me as it is to Brad that they
}knew they were exploiting. But I fully admit some bias as I don't have
}patience with 14 year olds who talk like 14 year olds.
}[Mon Jun 04 20:28:04 2001] Guildmember #1 told the guild, 'not if they nerf
}3rd tomor ;( heh'
-snip-
}[Mon Jun 04 20:28:36 2001] Guildmember #2 told the guild, 'so no snare
}sploit?'
-snip-
}[Mon Jun 04 20:28:44 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'Killing snare
}sploit?'
}[Mon Jun 04 20:28:48 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'changing it so we
}cant snare sploit'
These strike me as the most damning lines... However. I must admit it is
possible to read them in light of exploiting a feature, as opposed to a
bug. "Hmm. They're changing this feature, I hear. I dunno why they're
changing it, but this is my last chance to use it." I just wish I'd had
advance warning that they were going to change the recent large sewing kit
feature!
It seems to me that they possibly should have realized that the fact
Verant was changing it meant it was a bug, in this case. But I can also
see where they might not have made that connection. Further, they may not
have been absolutely certain that the rumor they heard was accurate, but
were going to act on the basis that it might be.
}[Mon Jun 04 20:28:49 2001] Guildmember #5 told the guild, 'LoS! Rez!
}Pathing! Agro! With our powers combine, we summon forth ITZLEGEND!'
Yes. But this guy, reportedly, didn't even go on the raid and was not,
therefore, suspended or banned. Nice to be able to make jokes that doom
others from relative safety, isn't it?
[17 Wizard] Vanlasaa <Knights of IGF> (Dark Elf) Ayonae Ro
Dan Harmon
"Remington Stone" <ez06...@logan.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9ge0mr$a67$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> }[Mon Jun 04 20:28:44 2001] Guildmember #4 told the guild, 'Killing snare
> }sploit?'
> }[Mon Jun 04 20:28:48 2001] Guildmember #3 told the guild, 'changing it so
we
> }cant snare sploit'
>
> These strike me as the most damning lines... However. I must admit it is
> possible to read them in light of exploiting a feature, as opposed to a
> bug. "Hmm. They're changing this feature, I hear. I dunno why they're
> changing it, but this is my last chance to use it." I just wish I'd had
> advance warning that they were going to change the recent large sewing kit
> feature!
>
> It seems to me that they possibly should have realized that the fact
> Verant was changing it meant it was a bug, in this case. But I can also
> see where they might not have made that connection. Further, they may not
> have been absolutely certain that the rumor they heard was accurate, but
> were going to act on the basis that it might be.
This would hold water to me if this was a guild with the average player in
their teens or twenties. But by the 50s you KNOW that there's something
wrong with how spells work together when something like this happens. You
KNOW unless you're a freaking moron.
Ok, granted, I DO think that most 1337 guilds like CQ are FULL of freaking
morons, but will THEY admit to that? I doubt it. Rock & hard place: Admit
to cheating or admit to being stupid. Hmmm.
Kellee C.
A) If I see someone doing something like this, as long as I'm not being
inconvenience, I'll just go on my merry way.
B) I'm wondering what kind of stupid moron the GM is for telling the
cheater your name? What freaking purpose does that serve? All he has to do
is tell the guy he witnessed the exploit and that's that. Why bring you up
at all?
Kellee
--
Tunare Server
Diela, 29 Bard
Sanika, 17 Iksar Shaman
Tilandra, 8 Cleric
"bizbee" <tub...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0fupitoigpgtlkkt8...@4ax.com...
> Yn erthygl <JN6X6.12707$_T2.24...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> sgrifenws "Dan Harmon" <deha...@bigfoot.com>:
>
>
> >Ok, granted, I DO think that most 1337 guilds like CQ are FULL of
freaking
> >morons, but will THEY admit to that? I doubt it. Rock & hard place:
Admit
> >to cheating or admit to being stupid. Hmmm.
> >
> Well, full to some extent, unfortunately, quite often, they are <led>
> by them. I honestly believe that some people are just too fucking
> dense to take responsibility, and anything that goes on is always
> someone else's fault, never theirs.
>
> I ran into one the other night. I've been seeing the same person
> hunting in the same spot for several days, exhibiting suspicious
> behavior... so I decided to watch for a while (after seeing him there
> off and on over two days for about twenty total hours)... turns out
> he's using what appears to be a pathing error for an easy kill on a
> high level mob with no damage. I petition, still unsure whether or not
> what he's doing is truly what it looks like to me, and I leave. Not
> long afterward, I'm contacted by a GM who tells me the guy has been
> spoken with and told to move along. I thank him.
> Not the end of it, however... the guy sends me a tell and threatens
> me. I send in a /report, and recontact the GM and tell him what
> happened, and that I had sent in the report. The GM says "Figures.
> Your report will be kept as a record and the situation will be passed
> up the line. Thanks." I assume that when he said "figures," he was
> implying that he wasn't in the least bit surprised. I put the guy on
> ignore because he keeps sending me ranting tells about how he isn't
> exploiting and how my ass now belongs to him.... sorry, but all I did
> was point it out.. the GM said you weren't supposed to do that, not
> me, so why don't you flood <him> with tells instead.... I put the
> moron on ignore. It gets better.
> I contact the guy's guild, not because of the exploit, but because of
> the threat. I get a hold of the leader himself. <This> moron tells me
> the guy I'm ratting out is his SECOND IN COMMAND. At this point I
> realize I may as well be talking to a sack of potatoes, but I keep it
> civil. He asks <why> I'm telling him this info. Well, I say, you <are>
> the guild leader. I'm not bitching about the exploit, I'm bitching
> about this son of a bitch threatening me for turning him in for being
> a cheater. Most guild leaders actually give a damn about the behavior
> of it's members, let alone it's officers.
> He comes back with "That is not an exploit, it's a pathing error."
>
> Obviously he knows what's going on, and condones it 100%. I tell him,
> well, I'm not here to discuss the <exploit>, and regardless of what
> you think, the GM told him to knock it off.
> I add that using the pathing error to kill a mob without taking any
> damage <is> the exploit, he tells me "Well, the logic of that
> statement can be argued all night, but I'm not about to do that."
> Thank God, because I have to go to work and have better things to do
> than argue with a ranting moron for an hour that feels the need to
> make excuses for some guy's actions when he wasn't even there himself
> to see what was going on. He seemed to forget that the GM was the one
> that told the guy to knock it off, not me.
>
> So now the <leader> is sending me ranting tells, defending his
> cheating second in command who can apparently do no wrong, first
> cheating, now threatening me. Great. Put <him> on ignore.
>
> I'll be waiting for some kind of retaliation so I can get this stupid
> motherfucker's account cancelled.
>
>
Red Celt
<piggybacking>
> I ran into one the other night. I've been seeing the same person
> hunting in the same spot for several days, exhibiting suspicious
> behavior...
Exhibiting suspicious behaviour? ROFLMAO
Bizbee; Norrath's neighbourhood watch. D'ya think he applied and was
refused the position of a guide and feels the need to spend his main
EQ time as guide's assistant?
> so I decided to watch for a while (after seeing him there
> off and on over two days for about twenty total hours)...
Most people camp/hunt for xp and/or loot. Bizbee camps for
transgressors against VI policy. Just when I thought I couldn't think
any less of this sad sack of shit.
> turns out
> he's using what appears to be a pathing error for an easy kill on a
> high level mob with no damage. I petition, still unsure whether or not
> what he's doing is truly what it looks like to me, and I leave. Not
> long afterward, I'm contacted by a GM who tells me the guy has been
> spoken with and told to move along. I thank him.
/cheer Bizbee! What a star! What a hero! Norrath is a safe place once
again.
> Not the end of it, however... the guy sends me a tell and threatens
> me. I send in a /report, and recontact the GM and tell him what
> happened, and that I had sent in the report. The GM says "Figures.
> Your report will be kept as a record and the situation will be passed
> up the line. Thanks." I assume that when he said "figures," he was
> implying that he wasn't in the least bit surprised.
More than likely he wasn't in the least bit surprised that it was
*you* who sent in the report. Do you operate under some kind of
illusion that the GMs actually *like* you, Bizbee? I bet you have the
most /petitions on your record on your server. You are a joke.
Stop and wonder why the GM gave the guy your name.
> I put the guy on
> ignore because he keeps sending me ranting tells about how he isn't
> exploiting and how my ass now belongs to him.... sorry, but all I did
> was point it out.. the GM said you weren't supposed to do that, not
> me, so why don't you flood <him> with tells instead.... I put the
> moron on ignore. It gets better.
This *is* your primary means of getting fun out of EQ, isn't it? On
usenet you spark and then feed as big a flame war as you possibly
can... then you go into EQ to find as many fights as you can possibly
muster. <shaking head> Truly pathetic.
> I contact the guy's guild, not because of the exploit, but because of
> the threat. I get a hold of the leader himself. <This> moron tells me
> the guy I'm ratting out is his SECOND IN COMMAND. At this point I
> realize I may as well be talking to a sack of potatoes, but I keep it
> civil.
Oh the sheer willpower that must have taken!
> He asks <why> I'm telling him this info. Well, I say, you <are>
> the guild leader.
You skate around your actual reasoning, Ron. You wanted the guy
de-guilded, didn't you?
> I'm not bitching about the exploit, I'm bitching
> about this son of a bitch threatening me for turning him in for being
> a cheater.
You're bitching because it is your hobby. Your number one pastime.
> Most guild leaders actually give a damn about the behavior
> of it's members, let alone it's officers.
> He comes back with "That is not an exploit, it's a pathing error."
>
> Obviously he knows what's going on, and condones it 100%. I tell him,
> well, I'm not here to discuss the <exploit>, and regardless of what
> you think, the GM told him to knock it off.
> I add that using the pathing error to kill a mob without taking any
> damage <is> the exploit, he tells me "Well, the logic of that
> statement can be argued all night, but I'm not about to do that."
> Thank God, because I have to go to work and have better things to do
If you had better things to do, why didn't you do them prior to going
to work?
> than argue with a ranting moron for an hour that feels the need to
> make excuses for some guy's actions when he wasn't even there himself
> to see what was going on. He seemed to forget that the GM was the one
> that told the guy to knock it off, not me.
Oh yeah, not even slightly your fault is it? You only did the initial
petition and stirred up a mountain of shit.
> So now the <leader> is sending me ranting tells, defending his
> cheating second in command who can apparently do no wrong, first
> cheating, now threatening me. Great. Put <him> on ignore.
The ignore list is 30 per character. Why do I get the feeling that all
of yours are full.
> I'll be waiting for some kind of retaliation so I can get this stupid
> motherfucker's account cancelled.
Ron A Green.... you seriously seriously need to get laid.
Kelteh
Jason Burgoyne
are near one of those little islands, if you jump on one they run all the way
around to get you. I had a GM tell me that this was not a valid tactic, I told
him that I thought they were too heavy and not nimble enough to jump the casm,
thus they would run around to get me. He said as I explained it in roleplay
terms he would let me off, but that I could not use it to kill the mob. So I
asked if I could use that as a valid means of escaping with my life. He said HE
would not take action against me for it, but others might.
Moral of the story, always roleplay.
R Crouse
reaction to rest as it clearly shows that the "snap judgment was fully
analyzed
later."
LOL, that's brilliant, like an Internal Police Investigation into an Officer
Related Shooting... why make the snap judgment at all (in Verant's case) if
all of the facts aren't clear and the "Party at fault" is asking Verant to
make a review of the facts Before a final decision is made and not After?
Strykur 22 Shaman
Veeshan Server
Occasional Newsgroup Reader