Kripp banned from GW2

"

SqueakyToyOfTerror wrote:

"

Charan wrote:

I don't often get to say this with a straight face: I'm a ninja! (--)

Yea, I didnt repeat you a couple of times, lol. My apologies for that :)

"

anubite wrote:

No, when I say GGG wants us to exploit their game, I refer to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gX6ZBydHH4

Around 11 minutes in.

"

Kripp may not have managed to gain a horrific amount during the fiasco, but that does not account for the gain from others after his live stream of the use.

Kripp is not responsible for the actions his viewers take. The fact he streamed this exploit is a good thing, because it brings it into the public light. Many exploits remain underground for ages.

From what I can tell that video portion is in regards to the use of an item, not the use of an item to gain currency. All that means is that the Diamond Flask is being used exactly as intended. Not the use of the developers mistake.

And yes, exploits being in the lime light can have it's advantages. And as stated, a perma-ban is a bit severe, however, a temporary suspension to allot time to contain the issue is another story.

Though, I would be quite curious to see what changed ANet's mind on the ban status.

The diamond flask is used as designed, correct, but the chromatic-vendor trick (where you buy a vendor item and sell it back to the vendor for more than it was worth) is also not an exploit, because it is left in the game by design. Yet, you should feel like you're exploiting the system when you do it. It's the same thing.

GGG wants us to exploit the game; because when we feel like we're exploiting the game, we're having fun. That's my point.

I'm not talking about botting or abusing bugs or unintended design. But if we find something in the game that's fishy - something that gives us a huge edge over somebody - it may OR MAY NOT be an exploit; that has to be determined by GGG, whether that advantage falls within the realm of their design.

In Kripp's case, he decided to use the expoit the vendor. That choice was not within ArenaNet's design, so they banned him for it before they could even clarify he was doing anything wrong.

I know a cheat code is something that has disappeared in the last decade, but go and look at an older game like Banjo Kazooie. The developers left tons of secrets and cheats for players to discover and abuse; to exploit. That was clearly within the realm of intentional design. And I'm sure many players enjoyed exploiting the game. The concept is not much different to what is talked about in that video.

okay..... diamond flask exploit aye... gonna have to give that a go tonight....

surely that sounds like a real exploit to moi?

"

piscator123 wrote:

okay..... diamond flask exploit aye... gonna have to give that a go tonight....

surely that sounds like a real exploit to moi?

The chromatic-vendor exploit is similar to the exploit Kripp was banned for.

The diamond flask "exploit" is an example of impactful gameplay. You are "exploiting the system" - you are buliding around the diamond flask and exploiting its properties.

In essence, what I'm saying here, is that there are two meanings when we say exploit:

1. The game is beaten in a way the game was not designed to handle.

2. The game is beaten in a way the game was designed to handle.

When I exploit the fact that critical cold strikes freeze, I am making a build around critical cold attacks.

When I exploit a programming error in D3 that gives me nigh invulnerability, I am breaking the game.

When I exploit a specific stock trend in real life, I am playing the stock market game and winning.

Games are ABOUT finding exploits and executing them. Exploits we think are "unfair" are called exploits by game developers, but they're not articulating clearly enough. What they really mean to say is: "You're not playing the game how we want you to play it."

emmm thanks for explaining, diamond flask isn't an exploit, but the chrom-vendor thing sure sounds like it.

i'll have to give that a go tonight :D

GGG please don't ban anubite for advertising exploits

I think it is precisely the nebulous usage of 'exploit' that is behind the whole thing anyway.

To me, 'exploit' really does mean something destructive, something that should be fixed and confers a totally unfair advantage. The person who found it should be treated precisely how they treated the exploit: fairly if they reported it, harshly if they did not, extremely harshly if they did not and showed others.

BUT I still cannot see what happened here as being of that magnitude. Anyone could have done it, and it wasn't particularly obscure.

Perhaps it's just my English background here, but 'exploit' is a negative word in my books and to be exploited is not a pleasant experience. I am not convinced that GGG refers to these issues such as chromatic shopping as 'exploits'.

Indeed, I would argue that once they know about them (or once players find them and GGG does nothing), we should not call such features 'exploits'.

Of course, if referring to them as such to players helps limit actual exploitation by providing an artificial concept of cheating, so be it.

I think that's what you're talking about, anubite. That contrived envelope of 'cheating' and 'exploiting' that is well within GGG's idea of 'acceptable' but seems to players to be somehow an exploit.

I stipulate that if a real exploit were found, such as some way to make a character invincible, item duping outside of the mirror or (heaven forbid) free respecs, GGG would fix that quicker than you can say 'nerf?!'

LOL I dont even know how this chrome vendor thing works??!!

u buy a chrome with jewels, then sell it back for more jewels or what???

"

I think that's what you're talking about, anubite. That contrived envelope of 'cheating' and 'exploiting' that is well within GGG's idea of 'acceptable' but seems to players to be somehow an exploit.

I stipulate that if a real exploit were found, such as some way to make a character invincible, item duping outside of the mirror or (heaven forbid) free respecs, GGG would fix that quicker than you can say 'nerf?!'

The word exploit is nebulous in the context of a game. Rules are what define what is "cheating" and usually when you use the word exploit, you mean someone is unfairly abusing the system. "Unfair" is a very nebulous concept.

ESPECIALLY in a massive game like an MMO, where there are thousands of rules that not everyone can possibly know off the top of their head. Many rules are not even conceived by the developers until after the fact.

Games evolve just as words evolve. Your understanding of exploit is correct, it is usually used in a negative manner, especially in the field of video games - I think Blizzard is well known for introducing the word into some kind of legal-lexicon-like fashion. That all exploits are wrong/bad.

We're playing word games here, but a game's "feature" or its "exploit" are difficult to define. They are essentially the same thing though, just with different labels of legitimacy.

Something is an exploit only if it violates the rules of a game. If a game's rules are poorly defined, then everything is potentially an exploit.

People play video games because they like to feel powerful. You are powerful when you break the rules. This is the point Jonathan makes - you are having fun when you think you are exploiting Path of Exile. But you're not /really/ exploiting POE because the developres /want/ you to exploit it. By their desire to have the game exploited, it isn't actually exploited, since it's a "sanctioned exploit". They are saying an "exploit is fair" which is essentially a contradiction.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

In short, people exploiting the game (in the truest sense of the word) is bad, but people feeling like they're exploiting the game is good (because that's fun).

This! This is what I've been trying to say but failing miserably.

Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm off to actually play Gw2 for a while rather than getting caught up in its inevitable web of crap from a less immersed level. :)

They shouldn't have banned anybody permanently, people were exploiting the system fairly, they weren't triggering glitches of any kind, they were exploiting a silly developers mistake.

It might be just me, but I wouldn't be capable of banning anybody for a stupid mistake of mine such as a typo.