How Do You Define Exploit?

"

By this definition of exploit, there was justifiable cause for me to have been banned last league (I wasn't of course). I believed that the number of Harbingers spawned by Diplomatic Escort was unintended - so many that it always froze and sometimes crashed my computer, and caused my experience to soar into the billions per hour, all for only two atlas passive pairs. Nevertheless, I continued to use it because it was fun and efficient.

Valdo's Rest spawning so many harbingers was most likely intended, because it was simply a case of there being so many to kill but if there was some bug in the game causing an abnormal amount to spawn than what is supposed to spawn, then it probably would have just been a mid-league bug fix.

"

I would like to know concretely where the threshold lies between the two, so that I do not accidentally stumble into the realm of exploits, nor incorrectly believe I need to avoid a certain strategy while it is not actually an exploit.

I mean, you were given a very concretely defined threshold where apparently what was done was capable of spawning infinite loot but you dismissed it with semantics.

In Skyrim when it first released on the PS3, there was a way to use the Oghma Infinium to give unlimited levels in each skill. You were only supposed to gain five level in the skill group of your choice.

You would activated it and close it right away. This could be repeated until you were at the maximum level of 81. This is what I would consider an exploit.

In the case of Skyrim, a single player game, you were the only one "harmed" by not having to level normally.

something you know is wrong.



Like posting a bug report and then continueing to abuse it lol

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

something you know is wrong.

This is obviously an incorrect definition, as everyone has their own subjective opinion on right and wrong, and the game developers would have to be mind readers to know players are doing something they believe to be wrong.

The people who got banned wouldn't have done what they did if they believed it were wrong.

"

VolcanoElixir wrote:

Valdo's Rest spawning so many harbingers was most likely intended, because it was simply a case of there being so many to kill but if there was some bug in the game causing an abnormal amount to spawn than what is supposed to spawn, then it probably would have just been a mid-league bug fix.

We know this to be completely false logic. In Delirium league GGG openly admitted that Purposeful Harbinger + Endbringer was wayyy stronger than they intended, but they didn't want to nerf it mid league and cripple those who had invested everything into that build.

So it's clearly not the case that (No mid-league nerf) => (Intended).

Stopping the clock on ultimatums to milk a continual stream of monsters seems almost identical to perpetual tunnels lockdown farming.

In both cases, GGG focused on the intended behaviour (finish the stage asap; exit the heist area in a timely and goal-directed manner with the target) and totally neglected to test or even think about any scenario that did not involve this behaviour.

In both cases, players discovered that they were continuing to get xp for additional monsters after the initial challenge. In both cases, this discovery was very likely accidental and only later led to systematic abuse.

However, in Heist, nobody got banned for backtracking in Tunnels endless times to crank up their xp bar or generate some ilvl 84+ rogue gear drops. The XP got nerfed, the drops got nerfed, and people stopped doing it.

For Ultimatums, the response could have been very similar. Change the timer so when it stops, monsters stop granting XP or drops. Or cap the number of monsters for encounters where the worst exploitation was possible. Or any number of other fixes that preserve the intended timer behaviour.

Instead, GGG chose to ban several people for using the exploit, and adopted a tone of vindictiveness in their announcement. Completely absent from the discussion was GGG accepting responsibility for the unintended timer behaviour, or a commitment to fix it so it is no longer rewarding to exploit.

Perhaps all the hostile internet rage over the streamer VIP treatment and crass, entitled comments they made on launch day, got under GGG's skin so they panicked and latched onto a very public and messy ban wave as a way of making it up to the player base. Using Empy as a scapegoat with extreme prejudice, they hoped to distract and buy back the good will of tens of thousands of players.

As much as I find certain streamers to be on the narcissistic side, handing out bans for doing the same exploit as Heist seems arbitrary and premeditated. It's like they were setup. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Maybe if they had been banning people left and right at the beginning of Heist over tunnel milking. But this is just awful coincidence with the league VIP gaffe.

"

We know this to be completely false logic. In Delirium league GGG openly admitted that Purposeful Harbinger + Endbringer was wayyy stronger than they intended, but they didn't want to nerf it mid league and cripple those who had invested everything into that build.

So it's clearly not the case that (No mid-league nerf) => (Intended).

Probably not the best example as aura stacking had an interaction removed mid-league because it was possible to use effects never intended for the player to take advantage of with it.

One of math's dirty little secrets is that you can't define "definition".

One thing that mathematicians agree on is that definitions can only classify previously known things. In this case you're classifying "actions".

So an exploit is an action, but not every action is an exploit.

In a gaming environment:

An exploit is (ab)using an unintended mechanic/bug/glitch to your own benefit. If this mechanic/bug/glitch is obviously unintended, and you're (ab)using it to your own benefit instead of reporting it, it should yield you a hefty ban. If an adult person isn't capable of seeing the difference between 'balance' and an 'unintended mechanic', they never will.

"

Phrazz wrote:

Edited

Out of respect for Phrazz, I'll remove my quote. He edited out the part I commented on. But basically this needs to be left to the discretion of the company running the game. Leaving this up to players to debate is utterly pointless.

I do think that GGG is being somewhat inconsistent here, but that's just the undercurrent of this thread. No need to hide it. They have thick enough skin to take that criticism.

No more "Streamers privileges" threads created after the ban wave . Diversion ? Who knows !