Alania

To me, Sotan, everything you've said IS an exploit. Its an unintended use of a game feature for gain. Even if the gain is extremely minimal, its still unintended use, and you still gain from it. What you are saying is that the offense needs to be really really bad before you consider it an exploit. What Pinski is saying is that it is an exploit no matter how bad it is.

Fae glide gave a huge advantage to fae's and arasi that the dev's decided to rebalance the ability by offering it to all the other classes in the form of a cloak. Based on the popularity of the item once it appeared, I would say that many people are quite glad they were given the opportunity to do the same thing fae's can naturally.

The only time you should be able to harvest without agro is if you have the faction with the mobs in the area, or if the mobs in the area are grey. If the mobs in the area are agro to EVERYONE, with no way to raise faction, and no way to outlevel the mobs, then it is intended that you have to kill the mobs to get to the nodes.

If every illusion in the game garners you nothing but a pretty facade (your claim that your toons with dark elf illusion gain something OTHER than a pretty facade is absolute rubbish), and this ONE illusion also garners you a faction change required to complete a quest, then this ONE illusion should only be used to complete said quest. Any other use of it is, in fact, exploiting it for gain outside of what was originally intended. The fact that the dev so quickly changed it once it was brought to her attention only solidifies the fact that using this illusion to harvest agro-free is in fact exploiting the item in question for gain unintended by the developer. The degree of exploitation, of course, is extremely minimal and no one will face punishment for doing it. But it is still an exploit of game mechanics.

No amount of your rationalization over it is going to change that.

Sotan

No. What I am saying is that these things are not offenses at all. I'm not rationalizing how bad something has to be before it's an exploit, I'm disputing the usefulness of your definition of "exploit".

The mere fact that an ability is used for a purpose dev did not foresee or intend does not make something an exploit. Honestly, the realm of perfectly legitimate behaviors this encompasses is so large that I'm amazed anyone can even say this in seriousness. Have you thought this through? Have you really thought through the implications of what you're saying here?

So I ask again, are these people exploiters? If you have a fae, and you glide over a river of lava that other characters can't pass, are you exploiting? If you jump off a griffon/sokokar and glide past aggro mobs that you would normally have to fight through, are you exploiting?

They are, by the definition you've set out. And I maintain that if you can call these exploits in earnest, then you've lost all perspective on the matter.

This is all well and good to say, but the fact is that the intended effect of the item was to make the mobs non-aggro to you. People didn't figure out some buggy way to make them non-aggro, that was the whole point of the item and it functioned exactly as designed.

This was clearly not the intended purpose of the item. Hence the change that's going in. But TBH, I don't give a flying fuck about what some designer imagines the purpose of an ability to be, and neither do most people. Figuring out creative new ways to use your abilities is how half of the raid encounters in the game get legitimately beaten.

And no amount of arguments by assertion on your part are going to redefine nearly every single player in the game as an exploiter simply because they use some ability or another in a way that dev didn't foresee, and--more to the point--that you don't personally like.

__________________
Sotanyavejin
OWG Fury

Talonis

Yes, stupid. That is exactly what I think. See what LFG said previously.




Idiot.



Remind me how many people have been banned for illusion harvesting exploiting? You aren't good at this arguing thing...

You have Q toons that harvest around aggro DEs using an illusion? Where is this place?

That's the only way you can attempt to make an argument, seperating the two. In fact, with regards to this item [and those like it] the intended purpose breeds the functionality; they are inherently linked. In this case, the functionality was left unintentionally too broad. It is getting changed. None of this is in Swahili. If you speaka da Engrish, that is pretty clear.

Working as intended......yet getting changed. Dumb motherfucker.

Yet you are on this teary crusade to keep this item in its exploitable state and waste pages of forum space to justify it. Sorry, no easy button for you, crybaby.

WTB bleeding snatch whiners with valid points and defensible positions.

Sotan

I invite you to cite any point in either this forum or the official ones where I argued that this item shouldn't be changed. Anywhere. I invite you to cite any point where I asked for /easymode. Anywhere.

I specifically stated up front that I don't much care whether or not it gets changed, and that the source of my annoyance was fucktards like you who cry "exploit" anytime someone figures out a creative use for an ability that offends your sensibilities, regardless of whether or not it's a bug.

That has been the sole focus of every post of mine on this thread. Not once have I argued that it shouldn't be changed. Not once did I complain once Domino posted that it would be changed. At every point my arguments have been focused on the redefinition of "exploit" into meaninglessness.

You are, quite simply, spewing utter bullshit that is directly contradicted by public posts that anyone here can read and verify, and you are embarassing yourself every time you comment.

__________________
Sotanyavejin
OWG Fury

Illuminator

LOL


Show me where there is an official written doctrine of the game that illusions are allowed to prevent aggro but not allowed to permit harvesting. If there is such a rule, great, let's see it then. That is what forms the line between "bad for the game" and "punishable exploit".

AH! One more constraint. No ex post facto.

__________________
80/140 Wizard, 80/140 Illusionist, 80/140 Warden, 80/126 Troubador, 73/107 Coercer, 60 Paladin
An enchanter epic weapon without subjugation is like a Buckeyes T-shirt without the colors scarlet and gray.


Don't find yourself fixing things out of fear that you should have fixed out of love.

dakkota

Thats what people get for thinking outside the box.

Talonis

If your entire tantrum is about language, specifically the term exploit, then you are indeed a special breed of retard troll. Shut the fuck up. Using trigger phrases like 'working as intended', 'class balance', and [holy fuck] 'exploit' is commonplace around the forums. If you are looking for literary purity and perfection in the application of terminology on the video game forums, I'd say you better go the fuck away because the typical poster is going to frustrate you to the point of suicide. Better yet, do us a favor and stick around for that result.

Exploits come in several flavors. Not all require bans and rollbacks. Your literal translation and application of only the harshest of definitions is beyond fucking dumb. You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand and recognize the difference, or you are just a bored troll asshole.

Probably both.

Sotan

I'll see your pointless, nonsensical demand and raise you one that makes sense. Show me where there is an official written doctrine of the game that any item or ability in the game must only be used for the specific purpose for which they were originally designed. Show me anywhere in the rules that prohibits players from being creative and using their items and abilities in ways that dev did not foresee. Show me any statement from SOE or dev, anywhere, that says players are required to finish all of their quests and that holding onto and continuing to use quest items they find useful is a violation of the game rules.

Time to put up or shut up. You're the one who's making the positive assertion that this is an exploit, so you've got the burden of proof here. Provide some fucking quotes from the EULA to support your position, or STFU.

Yeah, that's what I thought. After being shown that you were talking completely out of your ass, you backtrack from your claims and change the subject. READY! FIRE! AIM!

Moving on.

__________________
Sotanyavejin
OWG Fury

Darkniss

The only difference between an "allowed exploit" and an "not allowed exploit" is someone got burned.

For all the high level guilds using the Dijin music box on mobs it wasn't intended, everyone knows this one, and it is an exploit. But is it getting changed? No

So someone turned in the quest, lost the illiusion, and now feel burned about not being able to do this. So what they do, WHINE about it, and now it is getting removed.

Someone got butt hurt, and now a cool feature is being removed.

Intended???? that's BS, no one plays the game as intended, everyone has used shortcuts, known tricks to make impossilbe or annoying parts of the game eaiser.

Serathe

12. You will not exploit any bug in EverQuest II and 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 II. You will promptly report any such bug via the in-game "/bug" command. You may also report any such bugs/exploits by submitting a customer service help ticket through our in-game petition process.


I'm bored, that help any?

__________________


80 Sage/70 Coercer
80 Necro
80 Provisioner