Creative use of mechanic, or exploit

[Mosg2]

I'm with Knobley on this one: You can't expand Blizzard's intent to all encounters that have summoned components. I'm sure with a little bit of creativity and gearing you could do the exact same thing to the Baron in Strath, yet I'm pretty sure they didn't change the XP on those summoned skeletons.

[Vyndree]

The "bug" you could refer to is that a specific class was designed in such a way that they could expand that experience gained indefinitely. change the class or change the encounter, take your pick, but it was not a "bug".

Just because it only affects one class mechanic does not mean that it is not a bug. Classes can have bugs, and encounters can have bugs, and classes plus encounters can have bugs.

I'm saying that's a HUGE inference based on insufficient evidence.

Blizzard can ban you for no reason at all. (though I have no evidence of them actually doing so)
Blizzard has banned people for exploits without giving ANY warning.
Blizzard has not banned people for hotfixed "exploits" (and I say that in quotes for a reason).

What defines an exploit? Much like "the spirit of the game " or "automation" (as it applies to WoW) -- Blizzard does.



Taming spirit wolves was an unintended game mechanic. Could it have been considered an exploit? Yes. After all -- hunters were using a unanticipated flaw in the game mechanics to tame a beast that had unique visual qualities not found in other pets. Could they have banned hunters for taming these pets? Yes. Did they? No. They hotfixed it.

If I were to show up today walking around with a newly-tamed Spirit Wolf that I managed to get yesterday because I found a new loophole in the system -- would I expect to be banned? I mean, the other hunters weren't banned for getting wolves back in the day, but I have clear information from Blizzard (via hotfixing the spirit wolves) that they do not intend for the spirit wolves to ever be tamed again.

Is it so illogical to think that while they were patient the first time and allowed hunters to keep the wolves they had tamed, that I wouldn't be overstepping the line to try and find a NEW loophole, KNOWING that blizzard didn't intend for it to be done anymore? Would I be so cocky to think that it wouldn't now be a bannable offense to continue striving for a ghost wolf now that Blizzard has given me the clear indication that it is not something I should do?

[Heenan]

I'm with Knobley on this one: You can't expand Blizzard's intent to all encounters that have summoned components. I'm sure with a little bit of creativity and gearing you could do the exact same thing to the Baron in Strath, yet I'm pretty sure they didn't change the XP on those summoned skeletons.

Because we haven't posted a video and let the entire WoW community see that it is possible... yet.

You can't tell me that the developers were sitting around designing these encounters saying, "Hey, this will also be a cool way for higher levels to completely bypass 21 levels of content."

[Knobley]

We agree that Blizzard can ban me at their whim... for any reason. It would be stupid to give them reasons. We're in agreement there.

But let's look at your example... I'm wandering along and I see a pretty creature that I want to tame. Unbeknownst to me Blizzard didn't intend that I be able to tame this pretty pet, but I tame it anyway. Unfortunately for me, this unintended behavior is similar to something that got hot-fixed at some point earlier in the game (perhaps even before I started playing).

Therefore I'm an exploiter.

Is that what you're saying?

The more I think about it, the more your example makes my point. How am I supposed to magically know every creature that Blizzard may or may not want me to be able to tame? The ONLY thing I have to go on is what the game allows me to do. Honestly, I never heard of the spirit wolf thing before your example. Am I supposed to be worried that I might be exploiting every time I tame a pet now?

Knobley

[Vyndree]

Unbeknownst to me Blizzard didn't intend that I be able to tame this pretty pet, but I tame it anyway

But it's not unbeknownst to you. This is my point. Zolo was NOT an exploit -- until Blizzard removed it.

Spirit wolves were NOT an exploit -- until Blizzard removed it.

Reck bombing Kazzak was NOT an exploit -- until Blizzard removed it (and remove it they did... I believe it only took 24 hours for that one).

Even AFK'ing in the cave in AV was not considered exploiting until they implemented non-participation rules. They didn't even bother to warn people either -- they implemented the "change" the moment they started banning people.


We NOW know that Zolo is not intended by Blizzard, because they removed the ability to do it. CONTINUING to strive for the same Zolo-style leveling grind AFTER blizzard has removed Zolo would be ASKING for retribution -- don't you think?

[shaeman]

We can argue this back and forth, but unfortunately all this comes down to are opinions.

However Blizzard is the only opinion that matters.

Personally I would think that Blizzard with deal with exploits such as this with hotfixes (there seems to be an established precedent of this).

If they did go the ban route I'm pretty sure it would be a bunch of temporary bans.

Is this based on any fact, inside knowledge - Nope. Does it change what blizzard would actually do. Nope.

Should I have bothered posting. Nope

[Xar]

I don't understand why it's so hard for some of you to see that you *know* you are doing something that is outside the norm of what Blizzard intends and yet you still want to to do it and are trying hard to justify continuing to find new ways to do it. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD, but hey it's your accounts that are potentially at risk. I just hope new people to this site don't think all of us are as lazy as some of you sound.

You all trying to justify this behavior reminds me a lot of the perpetual level 1-9's hanging around Goldshire dueling, complaining about how hard it is to level up past that. 8|

[Knobley]

But it's not unbeknownst to you.

Of the examples you mention, the only one that was beknownst to me was the zolo trick. In any case folks can still go to zolo and fight him just like they did before the last patch, so THAT wouldn't be exploiting. (although who would want to?). By defination you can't exploit something that has been "fixed", (at least if it's been fixed correctly).

Before the change, as you have said, it wasn't exploiting.

Wasn't then, isn't now.

If I see something that I consider zolo like (pre patch), I will avoid it. I would, as you are doing, encourage others to avoid it as well. Of course it is foolish to knowingly raise the ire of those who have power over you, just as it's ignorant to do so unknowingly.

But that's just a matter of my personal comfort level.

What I don't feel comfortable wih is calling all things zolo-like exploitive. That's not my pejorative, and not, I think, yours either. After all, how like zolo does something have to be? Or, say, if someone were to find at after the 15th totem, the skellies start giving xp again, would it be an exploit to take advantage of that? Would that be a bug, or would it be exactly the "fix" that Blizzard intended?

I will hush on this topic now.

Knobley

[Mosg2]

Xar, it's a little over the line for you to arbitrarily call everyone lazy who used Zolo. Using the most efficient means possible to level is a far cry from being lazy--It's being smart. We reward that in every aspect of society.

On topic: I think, if anything, them not changing all similarly designed summoned mobs to only giving 1xp is a sign that they don't care. It wouldn't have taken that much longer to get'em all. In any case, until they make a post or something saying that they consider using similar mechanics then I don't think it's against the ToS.

[Stabface]

Unbeknownst to me Blizzard didn't intend that I be able to tame this pretty pet, but I tame it anyway

But it's not unbeknownst to you. This is my point. Zolo was NOT an exploit -- until Blizzard removed it.

Spirit wolves were NOT an exploit -- until Blizzard removed it.

Reck bombing Kazzak was NOT an exploit -- until Blizzard removed it (and remove it they did... I believe it only took 24 hours for that one).

Even AFK'ing in the cave in AV was not considered exploiting until they implemented non-participation rules. They didn't even bother to warn people either -- they implemented the "change" the moment they started banning people.


We NOW know that Zolo is not intended by Blizzard, because they removed the ability to do it. CONTINUING to strive for the same Zolo-style leveling grind AFTER blizzard has removed Zolo would be ASKING for retribution -- don't you think?

To me, the line between exploit and unintended game mechanic is: did they dole out punishment? If they did, then it was an exploit and *similar* actions in the future will also be considered an exploit, people who do the new thing will be actioned. If they didn't, then it's an unintended game mechanic and *similar* actions in the future will also be an U.G.M. and changed without action-ing those that partake of them.

unintended game mechanic:
Spirit Wolf, Mojo frog, Kazzak*, training world boss or blasted lands servants to IF, standing in fires next to the auctioneers, being able to use DS and then BoP on yourself when that wore off, getting SSO supplies from Nagrand quest, etc.

exploit:
AFKing in BGs, win-trading, blowing up the AH with pets + living bomb / hakkar disease, PvPing from rooftops, Hunter FD pull to split boss/adds, using Deadmines to get to GM Island, etc.

I put Zolo into the 1st category. BG-non-participation was warned about before they started putting people in time-out for it BTW.


*as far as I know the paladin on Azgalor did not get banned and was able to keep the loot from the kill.