Guild Wars 2

Zelyhn.8069:

I would like to agree, but we have to assume that maybe it is not what the developers intended and that they just cannot or do not want to fix it for the time being, because they have their own priority list. Hence the second factor.

By this logic we can assume everything in the game is unintended and therefore exploiting. We should all be permanently banned for standing in LA.

1997 update definition of assume.

“In 1997, the internet scholar known as Flying C*ckroach determined that the word was in fact not derived from latin, but was in fact derived from the ancient language of sarcasian, which has very different meanings.
In sarcasian, the words define as follows:
as* – from the sarcasian kitten meaning “he with great skill”
u – from the sarcasian hey you meaning “come here”
me – from the sarcasian me? meaning “yes you”
Thus, put together the word means, “he with great skill who is asked to come here, yes”. Roughly translated this can be interpreted as “a talented person who is needed desperately”. Thus whenever you “assume” something, you are in fact asking for someone to help you out with something of great difficulty.

I assume you would find the source of this definition all by yourself.

Well are talking in theories now, and I exposed mine.

Assume makes an as* out of u and me. I should of chosen a different word.

Zelyhn.8069:

Well are talking in assumptions and hypothesis now, and I exposed mine.

FTFY

And yet almost everyone failed to see the topic and provide a straight yes or no to the OP’s question.

Are dungeon boring because of the community?

No they are boring because of low skill cap and basic mechanics.

@OnlyFate
Personally, I tend to think skipping and stacking (without abusing the z-axis) is small potatoes compared to the really egregious stuff you can pull off.

But, you can spend all day trying to paint a dividing line somewhere, and it’s all pretty academic in the end. It’s not any one behavior the community does that makes the dungeon experience in this game so depressingly lame, it’s the whole horrible package.

There’s no point trying to separate out your lesser evils when the whole the lot of it needs to be tossed into the fire and built again from the ground up.

Bright.9160:

Zelyhn.8069:

Well are talking in assumptions and hypothesis now, and I exposed mine.

FTFY

Fair enough. So where is that counter assumption of yours that makes mine wrong?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

The dungeons were poorly designed from day one, and the fact that people glitch through them, only shows how poor the design really is. It is really easy to prevent players from glitching through walls, it just requires a cleaner way of constructing the dungeons, with build in safety nets. And yes, invisible walls are a good thing, as long as they do not obstruct paths that should seem accessible for the player. If you’ve got an encounter, like for example the Dredge Fractal… then why would you not place ceiling-high invisible walls everywhere where you don’t want players to go? It’s so simple to prevent this sort of glitching, it really is.

A lot of the encounters in dungeons are also poorly set up, using gimmicks that can easily be exploited, and thus that’s what people do. But there’s also various combat mechanics that simply do not work very well. We’ve got a ranged damage system that punishes players if they make use of height differences (makes enemies invulnerable), thus forcing players more towards melee. And we have a trinity that makes DPS the strategy that trumps everything. And since we don’t have a dedicated healing class, and dumb enemy ai, everyone stacks everywhere to make both defense and offense as effective as possible.

Defiant renders control skills useless against bosses, so any boss fight is reduced to simply a game of dodge the red circles, and DPS like crazy.

Skipping most of the mobs should not be possible, if areas in a dungeon were properly gated. And if the rewards were decent, players wouldn’t even want to skip. Alas, mobs have tons of health with very poor rewards, and thus skipping seems actually encouraged.

As for cheap tactics such as the corner trick, I think anything goes when fighting a boss. If you find a strategy that makes the boss fight a joke, then you save time, and you prevent casualties in your team. It’s not our fault as players, that their ai was not designed to work with one of the core design aspects of any square room (a frickin’ corner!). I call that, the “shooting the t-rex from behind the waterfall trick”. If it works, why wouldn’t you do it? Same with the boss at the end of the cliffside Fractal. It’s not our fault that he becomes bugged when you stand too close to him. It is Anet’s responsibility to sort out their boss ai so this doesn’t happen. If a MELEE boss cannot handle players getting too close to him, are the players really to blame?

+1 ancient Tomb Raider reference

Zelyhn.8069:

Bright.9160:

Zelyhn.8069:

Well are talking in assumptions and hypothesis now, and I exposed mine.

FTFY

Fair enough. So where is that counter assumption of yours that makes mine wrong?

The problem with your assumption is you give no reason for your assumption. You just say “We have to assume this is wrong” but… there’s no reason to assume it is wrong.

This would be akin to me saying “We have to assume that being able to dodge GL’s grub spawn is an exploit and the developers just haven’t gotten around to fixing it.”

Ok let’s take a look at what I said:

I would like to agree, but we have to assume that maybe it is not what the developers intended and that they just cannot or do not want to fix it for the time being, because they have their own priority list. Hence the second factor.

Now let’s see what we can understand from that:

we have to assume that maybe
Expressing of the existence of a possible alternative reality

it is not what the developers intended
Exposing that alternative reality

they just cannot or do not want to fix it for the time being
Reason for why this alternative might exist

because they have their own priority list
Reason for the reason of the possible existence of the alternative

I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind my assumption

BEEP BOOP I AM A LOGIC ROBOT

VVVV lolll

HUP HUR LO-GIC. LO.. G>>//‘’’;;;;;; [Error] IC.

Zelyhn.8069:

Bright.9160:

Zelyhn.8069:

Well are talking in assumptions and hypothesis now, and I exposed mine.

FTFY

Fair enough. So where is that counter assumption of yours that makes mine wrong?

Nothing, the default position is that if a mechanic is in the game, it is intended, until it is specifically said that it is an exploit or unintended, unless it is blatantly obvious, like jumping over walls and skipping big parts of dungeons. Or doing things like 3-in-1 CoE and CoF runs or stuff like that.

Again, I’m going to try to avoid an infraction by vaguely referencing the burden of proof in certain philosophical belief systems that may or may not have something to do with the existence of deities.

You are saying it’s an exploit, it’s up to you to prove it is. So far all you’ve provided was subjective arguments like it being counter-emmersive.

Well, I suggest you stop using spells, because magic is counter-emmersive as well. This is a game where you can jump out of water, yet when you fall back in, you sink 3 meters instantly. Something as innocent as the golem hacking is most likely not an exploit, and is most likely designed as a problem-solving event where you were actually supposed to find the most efficient way possible.

1-1-1-1-1 is not one of those ways, and in fact, is f****ing ret*rded.

Provide us with actual proof or a decent argument, or drop the case. 1-4 is not an exploit.

If you can’t reference the burden of proof without insulting people, then you have issues.

Actually, it’s called “I’ve been trying to teach sense to people for the past year on this game and I’m sick of it, so screw showing any compassion”.

The guy’s argument boils down to, “I think this is an exploit.”

… That’s it. No reason why it’s an exploit, only a reason why, if it was, it hasn’t been removed yet.

And then he’s asking us to prove him he’s wrong and telling us it’s his opinion so we have to respect it along with breaking down his statement bit by bit as if I was too dumb to understand what he said in the first place.

No, buddy, I got it pretty clear the first time. It was just broken down into more easily digestible dumb chunks the second time through.

I think his definition of exploit is too wide as well. Given the wide of array of class capabilities and possible group composition, with any fight that directly engages the boss, I can’t point my finger at one playstyle and say “exploit!”.

But if you want a topical example of the burden of proof, it isn’t hard to provide one without offending people. I’ll do it now:

Regarding the recent chemical attacks on Syria, Vladimir Putin once said early on that the chemical attack was not caused by Assad, but by the rebels. According to Putin, it was done by the rebels as an attempt to encourage the UN and other more powerful nations to become involved in the conflict, and to drop public opinion of Assad. While this is an interesting perspective, the problem is that there is no real evidence of this claim. Rather the statement was made on the foundation of a lack of evidence to point either way. Because of this, it is very difficult to accept this theory of “rebel conspiracy”. I haven’t followed the situation too closely, though, so I don’t know what forensics has turned up now, or if Putin has said anything else on the matter.

And there you have it: No negative thing said about anyone. I suppose this also reflects the other side of the burden of proof: the lack of proof isn’t disproof. Right now, I have absolutely no evidence to provide that Giraffes exist. This doesn’t mean that they do not exist. Case in point, Zelyhn’s argument about what is considered an exploit and what isn’t, although not necessarily in line with what the rest of us think, is difficult to disprove as well. I’m pretty sure he’s wrong, but I can’ prove it.

Right, but it wouldn’t be at all reasonable to ask you “why do you believe Giraffes do not exist?”

And I would be well within reasonable expectations to think you’d answer that without being snarky.

Okay okay okay, you guys need some handling. Let’s get to it!

There are not many encounters in this game where you can find a technique that drastically changes the concept of the encounter. In CoE the console can be done in two ways: continuously or by steps.
- Continuous way: you pass the hacking levels one by one, as fast as possible because for each level passed your life will be threatened more. So the rest of the group defends you by killing what they can, aggroing, and controlling the rest. It is therefore a defensive kind of event. It is a race against the clock.
- Step way: you pass multiple levels at once, after an initial step which allows a defender to be free to protect the multiple hackers in step two. This is done by killing everything in step one. Step one is offensive. After this step two is defensive, but so trivial that the event as a whole can be considered offensive. You have all the time you need during the event, and your life is at no point realistically threatened.
I hope by now the differences in concepts are clear.
The fact that there are two different concepts does not necessarily mean that one of them is a glitch. It could be very well intended that the devs allowed for such techniques to diverge and develop.

Howver, since we have two techniques with significant differences in their core concepts, it is possible to assume that maybe the second technique (the 1-4 stack-hacking) was not intended by the devs. This is merely a hypothesis.

The second technique fails to enter the role-play frame of the game. The reasons for this have been explained earlier in the thread so I will not repeat them here, but I would like to attract your attention to a detail: when the devs want the members of the group to do the same action at the same time they provide the role-play frame for it: many times you can find multiple consoles in the game conveniently placed so that each member involved has its own and no one needs to battle with the others’ shoulders to have access to a keyboard.

Therefore, until either a dev expresses himself on the matter or they fix the role-play factor of the second technique, the hypothesis that it was unintended gains strength.

Now lets use some comparisons. Let’s take a look at my good friend Kohler
(Edit 2: never mind Kohler, bad comparison, a good comparison is with the Asura boss in arah p2: Agent Belka)
There are two techniques to face Kohler: the obviously legitimate technique were you face him, and the exploit to LoS him. The exploit is clearly a change in concept since you only have to damage him, without worrying about avoiding his main attacks. Notice how the things you have to do to exploit him (not going to expand on that) are definitely out of the role-play frame.

It seems that there are some recurring facts common for this exploit in AC and the hypothesis of exploit in CoE. Now let’s see why these may exist.

It is possible that the devs can not, or do not want to fix these techniques (in terms of role-play fixing or exploit fixing, I am being general here) because they have other priorities. It will not come as a surprise to anybody here if I say that devs cannot spend time working on all the lacking aspects of the game at the same time. The reason why such fix may be low on the dev’s order of importance is because of the community. They know that fixing the possibility of doing the 1-4 stack-hacking will make the encounter harder or longer for most groups. This would therefore foster some resentment among the community. And in turn the devs would have to redesign the encounter. This is not a one-off: remember what happened to CoF p2! The defensive event was considered too difficult by the community at large, people used exploits, the devs fixed the exploits, people complained, the devs redesigned the encounter. On a side note, I really loved the encounter before the redesign.

We have explained why the devs may lead some unintended bits in the game. We have explained how these bits may be unintended. While the stack-hacking technique may or may not be intended, until the devs address it in one way or an other, we have reasons to believe it is a glitch.

_

Edit: Gliiiiiitch!! I am an Asura I can see the glitches. I hate glitches, they annoy me, they hurt me under my skin… If you use glitches you hurt me. You wouldn’t want to hurt a poor little cute and friendly Asura like me, would you? I mean, what kind of inferior race would do that!? Know your place, subject.

Zelyhn.8069:

I agree for the spider but 1-4 in CoE is obvious glitching.

how is coe supposed to be done?
X people activating console and X people defending.

It lets you decide if ging for the easy way of 5 long activation with minimal risk

Or to risk more with 2-3

Or maximum risk 1-4

If you miss the 1-4, recovering the situation is extremely hard also 1 people defending alone is harder than 2 or 3 or 4.

Seems to me that s exactly how its supposed to work.
And also how it have been designed on purpose.
Its not a strange tactics but they put there expecting people to choose wich of the 3 tatcics to use.

Glitching, if you want, is the guy activating alone 2 console after lasers…..but since it doesn t almost change anything, nobody cares.

Zelyhn you should get more informations about what an exploit is before continuing imho.

Where your explanation falls apart is that our original problem with your statement is that you said “we have to assume this is an exploit.”

However, your long wall of text explains that it’s reasonable to assume it’s not an exploit.

So… I understand what you intended to say but the words you chose made you sound pretty unreasonable.

Thanks for explaining again what everyone already fully understood. Just to clarify it for you, your position is silly and the more you go on about it the sillier you look.

Just for clarification: My position or his position?

Kirschwasser.3972:

Where your explanation falls apart is that our original problem with your statement is that you said “we have to assume this is an exploit.”

That’s exactly what I did not say. I said, and I am repeating myself here (how hard is it to read the wall of texts that is two posts above), that we have to assume the possibility that it could be unintended.

It is possible, that’s all. The only thing that can disprove that is a dev expressing himself on the matter.

Alright, well… I don’t have to assume that it’s possible because I absolutely disagree that it is.

That’s why, again, I asked you for the reasons why you disagree.

Just to be clear the reason why I believe we have to keep this possibility in mind is that there are not so many encounters with two very distinctive techniques involving such drastic differences in concepts. And those that do are not breaching the role-play frame of the game.

I don’t think that they’re two drastically different strategies. One just seem slike a horribly inefficient way to go about it.

There’s multiple ways to fight Kohler, for example. Some people LoS him, some people rush in and melee him. I personally think meleeing him is easier because it’s not terribly hard to dodge his most damaging attacks. Do I have to assume that meleeing him as an unintended way to fight him?

The graveling mound room with Hodgins has a few ways to take care of it. You can camp someone on him to defend him, you can split the team up to take care of mounds separately, you can move like a train from mound to mound, you can have nobody defending hodgins at all. I’ve seen different strategies provide very different results. Do I have to assume any of them are unintended just because they’re effective or different?

The tactic in CoE doesn’t require any different mechanics or any glitches or any of the sort to use. Nothing about the fundamental nature of the encounter is any different. I highly and sincerely doubt that it is any form of glitch, exploit, or anything related. It’s simply there so people could, say, put two or three more guys down to get it moving faster.

Lots of encounters are actually quite nice with 1-3 players. Try stacking solo and see how it works.

For Kohler, LoSing him is an obvious exploit. I don’t think there’s any debate on that. However, meleeing him is a technique that does not breach any of the two factors of the glitch check. It may be odd because of the poor design of the AI, but it is not an exploit.

For the mounds, yes there are several techniques, but all of them rely on exactly the same concepts.

The point is not to compare the efficiency of techniques, the point is to compare their concepts.

Zelyhn.8069:

For Kohler, LoSing him is an obvious exploit. I don’t think there’s any debate on that.

Actually no its not.

Devs told how to check if something is an exploit or not.

Can kohler fight back? yes
Can kohler still evade your attack? yes

Why the stacking is good?
Because both pvp and pve designers tryed to balance ranged combat resulting in a game where
Ranging = more risk, and less reward. (usual anet overnerf)

Given that thing, its just better to find the smallest area to fight so all your buffs, fields etc can be used and people can be ressed fast

That is the only reason why the Whole los thing exists.

Its not even a los issue….
Los is involved only to lure the boss against the only wall like thing in the area.
Actually ANY boss/champ is prefeably killed against a wall.

Its due to lack of balance, its due to players wanting the easiest tactic, but is 100% legit.

Once again i repeat you don t clearly have an idea of what an exploit is.

I’m fine with “against a wall”

I’m not fine with “through the wall”

Edit: actually don’t quote me on that. I have seen this Kohler technique only once, so I could be wrong. I’ll try to find an other example less subject to debate.

Well I have an other comparison instead of Kohler: the asura boss in Arah p2.

Let’s not talk about the exploit because that would be contrary to the forums rules and it would spoil the experience for many people.

I think on this encounter we can say that the exploiting technique has a drastically different concept and it is also out of the role-play frame.

Kholer cornering means that he can still melee you, but it probably(?) minimizes the chance of him whirling suddenly (due to the dagger storm not being triggered because everyone is in close combat, not sure if whirl is triggered if any party member is in >x range) and that even if he does that move-and-attack action (I think it was the skill similar to ranger dagger 4 oooor was it ranger sword 2 and 3?), he stays pinned in the cleave area of any melee attacker.

That’s just my 2c though. Not quite sure if that’s how Kholer AI works, but I think it’s close.

Cornering kohler does the same identical things that he would do if not cornerd.

The only difference is that he jumps toward wall when he evades so you have less risk to miss melee Attacks due to misalignement.

It just optimize party dps but has 0 effect on kohler attack itself.
Its like cof1, coe 1-2-3, SE 3 etc etc etc ….its the standard tactic for melee parties.

He still use the whirling attack that is even way harder to see…

As said is the same as wall stacking any boss or champion….

Zelyhn.8069:

Well are talking in theories now, and I exposed mine.

It wasn’t a theory. At best it was a middle school science fair hypothesis.

Yes you are right, I was wrong about Kohler. As I see it all the techniques on him are legit and I would not consider them exploits. I think it’s not fun, but it’s not an exploit.

Agent Belka (Arah p2 boss 1) is the right comparison.

I would say that when pugging on average 2 players get downed every Daggerstorm, whether stacking or not.

Zelyhn.8069:

Yes you are right, I was wrong about Kohler. As I see it all the techniques on him are legit and I would consider them exploits. I think it’s not fun, but it’s not an exploit.

Agent Belka (Arah p2 boss 1) is the right comparison.

What does Belka have to do with it?

If players glitched themselves out of the map, and started killing Kohler from outside the map, now that would definitely without a doubt be a glitch. But players wall stacking, well that’s poor ai if silly Kohler can’t handle that. A glitch is when you deliberately break the game’s rules to do something that was never intended. But abusing flaws in the ai, is just abuse. It’s the abuse of short comings of the game’s mechanics. I don’t think that’s glitching. In fact, I’d say it’s perfectly fair. A boss does everything he can to kill the players, and the players do anything they can to kill the boss. If that means taking advantage of sloppy ai, then too bad for Kohler. Maybe the devs can get these bosses some counseling to deal with all the stress.

TheMaskedParadigm.3629:

Zelyhn.8069:

Yes you are right, I was wrong about Kohler. As I see it all the techniques on him are legit and I would consider them exploits. I think it’s not fun, but it’s not an exploit.

Agent Belka (Arah p2 boss 1) is the right comparison.

What does Belka have to do with it?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Dungeons-made-boring-By-the-community/page/3#post2816843

Belka is the proper comparison (see edit2)

Zelyhn.8069:

TheMaskedParadigm.3629:

Zelyhn.8069:

Yes you are right, I was wrong about Kohler. As I see it all the techniques on him are legit and I would consider them exploits. I think it’s not fun, but it’s not an exploit.

Agent Belka (Arah p2 boss 1) is the right comparison.

What does Belka have to do with it?

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Dungeons-made-boring-By-the-community/page/3#post2816843

Belka is the proper comparison (see edit2)

I still don’t understand.

There are two techniques to face Belka: the exploit and the legitimate way. The two techniques have drastically different concepts. Therefore we can assume that one of them is maybe unintended (possibility). Now, it is obvious for everybody that the exploit technique is unintended. Finally we notice one similarity with stack-hacking in CoE: it is just as much out of the role-play frame.
This is just to say that by comparisons and role-play checks we can see that some techniques are very likely glitches.

So until the devs express that stack-hacking was intended, or until they fix its role-play breach, then we can consider it a glitch.

Zelyhn.8069:

There are two techniques to face Belka: the exploit and the legitimate way. The two techniques have drastically different concepts. Therefore we can assume that one of them is maybe unintended (possibility). Now, it is obvious for everybody that the exploit technique is unintended. Finally we notice one similarity with stack-hacking in CoE: it is just as much out of the role-play frame.
This is just to say that by comparisons and role-play checks we can see that some techniques are very likely glitches.

So until the devs express that stack-hacking was intended, or until they fix its role-play breach, then we can consider it a glitch.

What does role play have to do with it?

Well when we have two techniques to face an encounter, and they involve very different concepts, we can suppose that one of them is unintended. The “Role-play” check simply helps to see if there in any truth in such hypothesis.

Like Haviz said: have you ever seen in a movie a hacking scene with 4 hackers (on the same machine) and 1 bystander ?

If it’s not in Hollywood then it’s not good

Being good at games has always been an exploit.

How much alcohol have you consumed, Zelyhn?

What he is saying that it doesn’t make sense that 4 persons can hack a single console. If developers 100% meant to include that tactic why didn’t they put 5 separate consoles?
One console implies that they probably didn’t think about it during the development.

It’s a super console.