Creative use of mechanic, or exploit

[Kayley]

My point basically is, everyone who was doing it, knew it wasn't legitimte. They knew it was going to be hotfixed, just a matter of time. The fact that they chose to hotfix over ban is just their views now, not in the future. Finding interesting tactics to get an upperhand in the game (protip: thats the defintion of exploit), is not a recommended hobby when wanting to keep your account. People who try to "convince" us that it was legitimate, or that they never thought it was going to be fixed, are either living in a fantasy world, or are trying to convince themselves

Agreed

[wererabbit]

My point basically is, everyone who was doing it, knew it wasn't legitimte. They knew it was going to be hotfixed, just a matter of time. The fact that they chose to hotfix over ban is just their views now, not in the future. Finding interesting tactics to get an upperhand in the game (protip: thats the defintion of exploit), is not a recommended hobby when wanting to keep your account. People who try to "convince" us that it was legitimate, or that they never thought it was going to be fixed, are either living in a fantasy world, or are trying to convince themselves

Ok, I've read all the way through here, and I realize this is merely my second post, but I feel I need to respond to your hyperbole.

I'm not trying to flame you but this is silly. You're not completely wrong. But mainly, you're just sitting and arguing a set of semantics so you appear better than other people.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter what you think about whether people should be banned or not, it's just your opinion, and your opinion doesn't really count in the grand scheme of things. Blizzard makes the rules, they made the game, they goofed up a boss fight, people saw it was goofed up, some smart people used the goof to their advantage. Big whoop. Blizzard ignored the public forum request for a response (if you would bother to read older posts you would see that) and then moved it to a bug report forum. Classifying it as a bug (not an exploit), they then terminated the goof up by toasting the xp gain. Whoopdeedoo. Nobody was banned, nobody lost credit with Blizzard, Blizzard had obviously screwed up.

Stop trying to lord it over people that somehow you are superior because you choose to spend hours of your life grinding a specific way that is different than their way. Yes, yours is the nice, hard-working time-consuming way. Nobody is arguing with that. Some people prefer to drive 80mph in the 55mph zone. They get tickets. Some people prefer to drive 55mph in the 55mph zone. They don't get tickets. Some people prefer to drive 80mph when the sign says 80mph, and everyone knows it should really be 55mph. So the city ordinance gets passed and the sign gets changed. Doesn't really change anything except the speed limit. You can't give tickets to drivers for doing the stated speed limit in an inconsistently delineated zone.

[Zaelar]

Exploiting is only against the rules if you're exploiting certain things. You can exploit class imbalances to win in arenas, for example. Suvega's definition is pretty accurate.

Unless you adversely effect the economy or bother other players I doubt you'll get banned. Worst case you get rolled back, and even then I doubt they would unless you find a way to get to 70 in under 24h unrested.

In 2.0 macros pretty much went from 150k xp/hour usefulness to 5k xp/hour usefulness. You could pretty much have had an entire raid macroed to one button back then and would only need to worry about movement. Heals that always target the lowest raid member? Easy, even down ranks for you. Programmed dps cycle that checks for buffs and debuffs that proc and uses cooldowns? You got it. Stop casting if your threat is too high? I think we had this. Someone even had a healer that afk-healed AV by using autofollow for movement and just mashed one button while watching tv or something. So does that mean we shouldn't be discussing macros that work now since blizzard removed them? The only difference here is that one was public.

[Greythan]

Finding interesting tactics to get an upperhand in the game (protip: thats the defintion of exploit), is not a recommended hobby when wanting to keep your account.

I'll try this one more time. Some people would consider the use of a 70 to instance boost a lowbie, just such an "interesting tactic". See the similarity? Forget the actual tactics. I realize that thus far Blizzard hasn't taken that stance or they'd have "hot fixed" it. That doesn't change the fact that with their tolerance of instance boosting (or boosting at all) they are at a minimum passively endorsing the tactic. Therefore, those that used Zolo (I never had the chance myself) very easily could have seen it as nothing more than following precedence. Either way is sort of a "cheesey" approach to leveling in that the lowbies do NOTHING and gain levels. Sound like an exploit or an intended game mechanic?

So, if someone finds an event, instance, mob-set that generates a higher rate of exp than a comparable instance, that's automatically an exploit? That's some stretch considering the policies that are in place.

[Vyndree]

Forget the actual tactics.

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.

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.

the use of a 70 to instance boost a lowbie, just such an "interesting tactic".

Let me paraphrase this a bit to make a bit more sense.

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.

[Greythan]

Well, we're into who's going to get the last word in on this as either I'm not understanding you or vice versa.

Would it be reasonable to presume that using the Zolo technique elsewhere in the game would be frowned upon by Blizzard? Yes. Is it black and white as to what level rate using standard game mechanics is acceptable to Blizzard? No.

Is there a similarity between me using my 70 Warlock to boost my crew in SM and another boxer boosing their crew in Zolo? Yes.

So, my problem was not with the general consensus that Blizzard has opined on Zolo, but rather the rather heavy handed way some posters were taking an "I told you so" approach. Anyone who's boosted is "guilty" of circumventing "normal" exp/hour rates. Period. From there its a question of degree and Blizzard has been less than clear on what they find acceptable. (i.e., one booster who has a Pally main has a HUGE leveling advantage over another who might have a rogue main. Pally can clear, what, 6 or more of SM Cath/Armory in one hour while the rogue can do 3?)

[darkcaster]

i just wanted to say hi...

its done, its over. ... you cant do it any more.

Find another spot and dont post about it, if you want to keep it.

[Tdog]

I was going to post my views on this in length but this post seems to sum up the jist of what is really important to take away from all this...

i just wanted to say hi...

its done, its over. ... you cant do it any more.

Find another spot and dont post about it, if you want to keep it.

[pinotnoir]

My name is Pinotnoir.. And I am a Zolo lover. Yes I used him to level from 35-56. Blizzard changed the encounter so it�s done and over with. I really find it funny that all you people are arguing over something that doesn�t exist anymore. Let�s quit all the post about how you think it�s an exploit or you think its fine. Remember the saying about opinions... They are like assholes. We all have them and think everyone else�s stinks. It makes me sad reading the forums and seeing all this bickering. Let�s move on because this doesn�t exist anymore.

Cheers, here is to the future.

[Suvega]

Stop trying to lord it over people that somehow you are superior because you choose to spend hours of your life grinding a specific way that is different than their way. Yes, yours is the nice, hard-working time-consuming way. Nobody is arguing with that. Some people prefer to drive 80mph in the 55mph zone. They get tickets. Some people prefer to drive 55mph in the 55mph zone. They don't get tickets. Some people prefer to drive 80mph when the sign says 80mph, and everyone knows it should really be 55mph. So the city ordinance gets passed and the sign gets changed. Doesn't really change anything except the speed limit. You can't give tickets to drivers for doing the stated speed limit in an inconsistently delineated zone.

A) I'm not trying to hold myself high and mighty, all I'm saying is that anyone who was dragging mobs around and instance to exploit a game mechanic to allow for phenominally high xp/hr (4-5x questing rate) probably knew that it wasn't 100% legit. Trying to 'convince' us that you had 'no clue' that this would be nerfed if ever found out, is a bit of a stretch :P

B) You're analogy is flawed. It is more like the law states that you must not go over speedlimit posted. There is no speedlimit posted so you go 200 mph in a suburb. Law is graciuos enough to not take your drivers license, and instead puts a 25mph sign up.
You can choose at the next suburb with no sign to go 200mph, you might keep your license you might not, however you knew it was risky when you did it.

In the end, you can admit it was shady, or lie to us/yourself to the contrary, but it was not 100% legit.