Quote:
Originally Posted by scalebane
Here's my take on the concept of "intended" and "exploiting."
In a dynamic system like we have, where players have the ability to make a decision and possibly think outside the box, it is the responsibility of the developers to place limitations on what their game allows AT THE TIME OF INCEPTION.
My favorite example of it all is the first kill of Lord Sanctus Seru back in the old days of EQ1. The developers CHOSE to put Seru in without putting in the access quest. They CHOSE not to make his building sealed on top. When someone realized this, they found that they could have their enchanters duel the raid members, gravity flux them to the top of Seru's building, and drop in from above to attack.
No exploiting or unintended use of any information, ability, or third party programming was used to cause any of this to happen, yet SoE punished these people anyway.
This is thinking outside the box. SoE's failure to extract their heads from their collective ass and remember that their system is not based on selecting options from a menu, but rather by people thinking for themselves, does not mean something has been exploited.
ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT INTO THE LIVE GAME SHOULD BE ASSUMED WORKING AS INTENDED. SoE's FAILURE TO PROPERLY PROGRAM, SCRIPT, AND TEST EVENTS SHOULD NOT BECOME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLAYERS.
We can talk all we want about how JoeSchmoe of SoandSO exploited a broken encounter, circumvented the way it was "intended," or whatever else you want to call it. The fact of the matter is that if SoE is prepared to release content into the game, then that content is working as intended, regardless of any tweaks / ajdustments etc.. that have to be made to it later.
While I do agree with you, BrightMorn , that the Devs have the final say on if something is working as intended, it's my opinion that anything released into the live environment should be considered to have that Dev Seal of Approval.
|
This answer and the ones very similar to it are the only correct answers. If you answered this any other way, you're a fucking idiot, period. And yes, that's somewhat of an ad hominem attack, but Jebez people...this isn't rocket science. And furthermore, for any of you who have been in combat, hiding behind a low wall or some other building or terrain feature isn't an exploit....it's keeping your ass alive and is working as intended.
The OP is correct, which one of you fuck-sticks gets to decide what is the correct way to do an encounter? Fuck you, unless SOE changes the encounter in some manner, whatever I or my group/raid does or can do is fair game...until a dev says otherwise.
This is the most retarded argument I've ever seen on this site and I've seen some extremely stupid ones here...this one will leave a mark for sure.
Here's an example of an exploit....and something that happened a long time ago. If you traded items at one point, clicked on accept, then decline, both people would get a copy of the item. I don't recall the exact steps, but it didn't take anything out of the ordinary to happen. It happened to me once and there was not much I could do about it...I felt it was wrong and avoided that scenario again...this was not working as intended and was fixed fairly quickly by the devs, but even some of you people could figure out it was wrong and needed to be reported. Pulling a mob to another room or area or hiding behind a terrain feature is not a fucking exploit.
If you still don't understand this, cancel your account, box up your computer, get your helmet and drool cup, and go hang out somewhere else.
For the love of Pete....what the fuck.....grrrr....stupid fucking arguments.....now I have to go wash my mind out with bleach. Some of you fuckers would complain if they hung you with a new rope....get over yourselves.
Re: Who says what is "Intended"?
