Ignorance of the details doesn't make it right. Sure, a 70 was used. That doesn't mean that there STILL wasn't an exploit involved.Originally Posted by Greythan',index.php?page=Thread&postID=96718#post9 6718]the use of a 70 to instance boost a lowbie, just such an "interesting tactic".[/quote]
It wasn't the mere use of a 70.
The fact that you had to jump through hoops using a specific 70 doing a specific thing on a specific boss to SPECIFICALLY get an unrealistic amount of XP -- that is the exploit.
[quote='Greythan
Like the blues in the CS forum say -- just because you didn't read the rules doesn't mean they don't apply to you.
ANY 70 can speed through normal instances as fast as he/she can to get XP for their friends/lowbies. ANY 70 can rip through quests with their lowbies to try and get them faster quest credit. ANY 70 will hit the instance cap if they do this at a rate that is unrealistic. ANY 70 can use ANY instance to get XP for their lowbies. Certain instances are more efficient for certain classes -- prot pallies excel at SM and warlocks at ZF -- however, you still can't exceed the XP/hour that's determined by the instance cap, no matter HOW fast you are. ANY 70 can NOT "nearly afk" doing it either.
Let me paraphrase this a bit to make a bit more sense.Originally Posted by 'Greythan',index.php?page=Thread&postID=96718#post 96718
you: "the use of 5 shaman to PvP is not botting -- it's a multiboxing playstle"
me: "just because you're multiboxing, doesn't mean you aren't also botting. A anti-afk bot connected to 5 multiboxed shaman is still a bot, multiboxed or not."
There are similarities, yes. But the situation around those similiarities is vastly different. One does not exclude the other.
Connect With Us