Guild Wars 2

Chris Cleary.8017:

“Safe Spot” – Standing in a location to hold aggro or attack a monster/boss while it is unable to damage you (basic attack) and does not leash back to it’s original starting position.

This is an abuse of a geometry and/or pathing bug, and is considered an exploit.

You’re defining it in terms of exploits there, Chris. Surely it’s possible to have a safe spot which isn’t an exploit?

For example, there was a safe spot on the fractal clown car boss where he could melee you but not hit you with his 1shot shockwave thing, and that was patched. How do you define that? Safespot? Safeishspot? Exploits?

I hope kiting enemies using geometry/pathing against them does not belong to the same category.

E.g. The boss has a gapcloser skill, and i stand behind an uncrossable object (for the time he uses that), so the boss will collide into that instead of me. He will walk around to me after his gap-closer animation is finished so i hope it is not considered as bugging/exploiting.

Thank you.

Is there any chance of Spider Queen being reverted in this case? It had a poison attack it would cast at range, and people could melee to prevent it. This was changed so that the queen used it regardless of proximity which reduced the depth of the encounter.

Thanks for the detailed answer

Thanks Chris.
Now, since you are reading this post, please bring back the TA f/u path, we miss it :/

Where are the TAFU threads of yonder?

Chris Cleary.8017:

Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design (for example the cage room in the newer flame and frost fractal…sorry I can’t remember the name of the dungeon it’s late). In that fight there are areas in which you can avoid almost the entire fight mechanic, that’s an example of poor dungeon mechanic design.

Standing on a rock/ledge/platform while the boss attempts to hit you from below (yes there are some bosses that still have abilities that hit you), is a problem with pathing and the boss not resetting when it can’t reach the target. This is exploiting a bug.

Kiting and using geometry (running AROUND pillars and such) is a perfectly valid tactic.

Standing outside a stationary boss’s range is not an exploit, the boss “should” reset after an extended period of time, but is not. This is an example of poor boss implementation, and not an exploit.

Using terrain to block/dodge boss mechanics is also considered a valid tactic (standing behind a pillar when a boss charges).

At this point we are getting very nitpicky at each individual boss and each mechanic in question. I’m sure most of you are aware of what is an exploit and what is a mechanic/tactic. We are working on fixing these “Safe Spots”, but it’s going to take some time to get it done, and will probably happen over time. (Sorry I am not going to go into particulars for fights/changes)

I’ll be very clear here:
If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot”, that player will be moved out of the safe spot and warned (via in-game text). If they are caught again, that account will be temporarily suspended.

If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot” and selling the dungeon run, that account will be temporarily suspended without warning.

EU is safe.

maha.7902:

Thank you.

Is there any chance of Spider Queen being reverted in this case? It had a poison attack it would cast at range, and people could melee to prevent it. This was changed so that the queen used it regardless of proximity which reduced the depth of the encounter.

I hope not. I like the fight much better now – for most parties, its not another simple stack in the corner fight anymore. I like moving during battles, rather than just dodging into the corner every 5-10 seconds.

Chris Cleary.8017:

Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design (for example the cage room in the newer flame and frost fractal…sorry I can’t remember the name of the dungeon it’s late). In that fight there are areas in which you can avoid almost the entire fight mechanic, that’s an example of poor dungeon mechanic design.

Standing on a rock/ledge/platform while the boss attempts to hit you from below (yes there are some bosses that still have abilities that hit you), is a problem with pathing and the boss not resetting when it can’t reach the target. This is exploiting a bug.

Kiting and using geometry (running AROUND pillars and such) is a perfectly valid tactic.

Standing outside a stationary boss’s range is not an exploit, the boss “should” reset after an extended period of time, but is not. This is an example of poor boss implementation, and not an exploit.

Using terrain to block/dodge boss mechanics is also considered a valid tactic (standing behind a pillar when a boss charges).

At this point we are getting very nitpicky at each individual boss and each mechanic in question. I’m sure most of you are aware of what is an exploit and what is a mechanic/tactic. We are working on fixing these “Safe Spots”, but it’s going to take some time to get it done, and will probably happen over time. (Sorry I am not going to go into particulars for fights/changes)

I’ll be very clear here:
If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot”, that player will be moved out of the safe spot and warned (via in-game text). If they are caught again, that account will be temporarily suspended.

If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot” and selling the dungeon run, that account will be temporarily suspended without warning.

Its nice to finally have some dev insight on this. Ive been arguing with people about this for ages whether or not certain things are an exploit or bad game design. Since youv’e admitted some fights are simply flawed by bad game design, do you have any plans to do a mass revamp of all the fights that suffer from these similar problems?

The record rules pretty much matched those definitions anyway, which is kind of cool

I’ve waited so long for a reply like this. Thank you so much for the clarification.

As mentioned by Dub. GM or Dev representation in EU is not that strong yet.
Hope you guys have some there aswell to check.

frifox.5283:

Chris Cleary.8017:

“Safe Spot” – Standing in a location to hold aggro or attack a monster/boss while it is unable to damage you and does not leash back to it’s original starting position.

Much better definition, however that would mean walled/melee lupi is an exploit…

Why? Lupi can very well damage you with most of his attacks. I’d go as far and say that Lupi has two basic attacks, a melee basic attack and a ranged basic attack and he simply changes his approach over the fight (in p1 he tries to kick everyone close to him, then he tries to blast everyone ranged while using his claws to severely damage & knock them into range of his projectiles).

Chris Cleary.8017:

Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design (for example the cage room in the newer flame and frost fractal…sorry I can’t remember the name of the dungeon it’s late). In that fight there are areas in which you can avoid almost the entire fight mechanic, that’s an example of poor dungeon mechanic design.

Standing on a rock/ledge/platform while the boss attempts to hit you from below (yes there are some bosses that still have abilities that hit you), is a problem with pathing and the boss not resetting when it can’t reach the target. This is exploiting a bug.

Kiting and using geometry (running AROUND pillars and such) is a perfectly valid tactic.

Standing outside a stationary boss’s range is not an exploit, the boss “should” reset after an extended period of time, but is not. This is an example of poor boss implementation, and not an exploit.

Using terrain to block/dodge boss mechanics is also considered a valid tactic (standing behind a pillar when a boss charges).

At this point we are getting very nitpicky at each individual boss and each mechanic in question. I’m sure most of you are aware of what is an exploit and what is a mechanic/tactic. We are working on fixing these “Safe Spots”, but it’s going to take some time to get it done, and will probably happen over time. (Sorry I am not going to go into particulars for fights/changes)

I’ll be very clear here:
If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot”, that player will be moved out of the safe spot and warned (via in-game text). If they are caught again, that account will be temporarily suspended.

If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot” and selling the dungeon run, that account will be temporarily suspended without warning.

So you’re basically telling us that abusing the bad design (environment, clipping, boss mechanics) is an exploit and we can get punished for that? I wouldn’t even consider wall jumping in WvW an exploit although it’s annoying – it’s just abusing the bad clipping there. If it was abusing a serious bug (like e.g. the duping bugs in GW1) OK, i could understand punishment in that case. Speaking of GW1: abusing the environment and AI was a perfectly valid technique there all the time.

I find it even funnier that you waste resources on “moving players out of safe spots” instead of actually FIXING THE BUGS/CLIPPING/MECHANICS (i know that GMs don’t fix these, don’t argue on this.) – all of these are pretty well known for nearly 2 years now.

You can’t just come up and SAY that some things aren’t OK to do. The game itself has to enforce this and make sure it won’t be played in unintended ways.

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Why? Lupi can very well damage you with most of his attacks.

I was referring to the p2/p3 where he flings projectiles at a player and when stacked under him, the projectile doesn’t connect. The fact that he keeps throwing it and that it does apply conditions to allies if you happen to “evade” at the time it “connects” makes me think that the attack was actually meant to connect even in melee.

frifox.5283:

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Why? Lupi can very well damage you with most of his attacks.

I was referring to the p2/p3 where he flings projectiles at a player and when stacked under him, the projectile doesn’t connect. The fact that he keeps throwing it and that it does apply conditions to allies if you happen to “evade” at the time it “connects” makes me think that the attack was actually meant to connect even in melee.

That;‘s not exploiting if using Chris definition, just a badly design move. It also remove Aegis. But the attack doesn’t connect even if you are just melee’ing off wall. So are you saying that melee’ing lupicus is an exploit.

Trice.4598:

That;‘s not exploiting if using Chris definition, just a badly design move. It also remove Aegis. But the attack doesn’t connect even if you are just melee’ing off wall. So are you saying that melee’ing lupicus is an exploit.

frifox.5283:

Much better definition, however that would mean walled/melee lupi is an exploit…

I guess I was XD

Though realistically I’d lean more toward “bad design” than an “exploit”…

frifox.5283:

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Why? Lupi can very well damage you with most of his attacks.

I was referring to the p2/p3 where he flings projectiles at a player and when stacked under him, the projectile doesn’t connect. The fact that he keeps throwing it and that it does apply conditions to allies if you happen to “evade” at the time it “connects” makes me think that the attack was actually meant to connect even in melee.

iirc it has a slight splash or so I heard. Btw, the first sentence was pretty much was I explained, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Wollowitz.9174:

Guys, please stop arguing.

Wades into a river filled with piranhas.

“Guys, please stop eating the flesh from my bones.”

I’m still unclear here’s another couple examples of other situations:

1. I’ve climbed up somewhere that mobs can’t reach and am going to town on mobs while other people are down there getting hit by them.

2. A specific example to illustrate a general situation here; in the Aetherblade Fractal in the last room with Frizz it is a common tactic for people to go stack in a corner with stability and dodge roll forcefields while burning the mobs. They still run over and hit you and you can still get hit by one of the forcefields and a lot of people fail at doing the boss that way.

maha.7902:

Thank you.

Is there any chance of Spider Queen being reverted in this case? It had a poison attack it would cast at range, and people could melee to prevent it. This was changed so that the queen used it regardless of proximity which reduced the depth of the encounter.

No thank you. Keep it as it is now. Let those fools that still try to cornerstack waste another 10 minutes. I’d rather wait 5-10minutes more for a “no spider stacking” group^^

Ettanin.8271:

maha.7902:

Thank you.

Is there any chance of Spider Queen being reverted in this case? It had a poison attack it would cast at range, and people could melee to prevent it. This was changed so that the queen used it regardless of proximity which reduced the depth of the encounter.

No thank you. Keep it as it is now. Let those fools that still try to cornerstack waste another 10 minutes. I’d rather wait 5-10minutes more for a “no spider stacking” group^^

Are you aware that everyone keep stacking at spider queen because it dies in 1 second anyway? Even in solo you just move once or twice depending on the rng..

Ettanin.8271:

maha.7902:

Thank you.

Is there any chance of Spider Queen being reverted in this case? It had a poison attack it would cast at range, and people could melee to prevent it. This was changed so that the queen used it regardless of proximity which reduced the depth of the encounter.

No thank you. Keep it as it is now. Let those fools that still try to cornerstack waste another 10 minutes. I’d rather wait 5-10minutes more for a “no spider stacking” group^^

lol.

Ettanin.8271:

maha.7902:

Thank you.

Is there any chance of Spider Queen being reverted in this case? It had a poison attack it would cast at range, and people could melee to prevent it. This was changed so that the queen used it regardless of proximity which reduced the depth of the encounter.

No thank you. Keep it as it is now. Let those fools that still try to cornerstack waste another 10 minutes. I’d rather wait 5-10minutes more for a “no spider stacking” group^^

Because stacking is harder, you agree?

This dev response gave me Ebola.
Little kid high school looking for hall monitors.

Chris Cleary.8017:

[dungeon police]

This is a horrible use of time and effort on Anet’s part. Scrap the dungeon police idea, and instead allocate those resources to programmers so that these issues can simply be addressed in a more permanent way.

A 315 word document in the middle of a random thread on the forums, briefly outlying the do’s and don’t’s of how to not get banned for playing the game is completely unreasonable for the vast majority of players to even know about in the first place. If these threats are actually enforced, it is only going to hurt Anet, GW2, and the few people that get banned for it, while solving nothing.

I dislike exploiters just as much as the next guy that wants good, challenging and fun gameplay, but a bad solution is worse than no solution at all.

Surbrus.6942:

This is a horrible use of time and effort on Anet’s part. Scrap the dungeon police idea, and instead allocate those resources to programmers so that these issues can simply be addressed in a more permanent way.

In other words: Fire the Game Security team and hire new programmers to fix all the bugs.

Whatever suits you, then. Give people an inch and they cry for a yard.

Lindbur.2537:

Whatever suits you, then. Give people an inch and they cry for a yard.

As I said: a bad solution is worse than no solution at all.

It took two years for that inch to be given, and it was even going in the wrong direction. And it was apparently not important enough to even deserve it’s own thread.

So what if I spawn 3 phantasmal duelists to attack risen priest of melandru and hide behind a wall? a) priest can’t move so he is in his spawn point b) he doesn’t even try to attack me or my clones, he just does nothing. and i do nothing, except my duelists killing it safely.
now i dont understand – is it a design flaw and not my fault, or am i exploiting?

frifox.5283:

Chris Cleary.8017:

“Safe Spot” – Standing in a location to hold aggro or attack a monster/boss while it is unable to damage you and does not leash back to it’s original starting position.

Much better definition, however that would mean walled/melee lupi is an exploit…

Walled is debatable, but melee is not an exploit, as referenced by St. Hrouda when Weth did his first Lupi solo “It’s not an exploit, it’s just good gameplay”. (forgive me if the wording isn’t exactly right)

It will be interesting however, if ALL the bosses in Arah were meant to be able to move. Melandru would be quite interesting if that was the case.

Let’s dial back the outrage a little. I don’t think the line between exploit and good gameplay is as fine as you are making it out to be. If you check YouTube you will find a number of videos where challenges are met in ways that are clearly exploiting flaws; people standing on posts or sideways on walls or such. If you are unclear if what you are doing is an exploit they’ve already said they will warn you first.

People are just not stopping to think about what they’re reading. If they actually took a second to think about it, they’d realise nothing is different than what the current standard is for record runs and the upcoming tournament.

Its nice to have a dev confirm and agree with what we already defined as exploits though.

Sublimatio.6981:

So what if I spawn 3 phantasmal duelists to attack risen priest of melandru and hide behind a wall? a) priest can’t move so he is in his spawn point b) he doesn’t even try to attack me or my clones, he just does nothing. and i do nothing, except my duelists killing it safely.
now i dont understand – is it a design flaw and not my fault, or am i exploiting?

I think it mainly depends on how zealous and liberal the particular Anet dungeon policeman is who sees you. I know of someone who received a ban after literally AFK 2-manning, face-tanking some boss kills in full Cleric gear. The ban message was extremely vague, and he had done nothing else out of the ordinary that he suspected could warrant a ban.

That’s one of the bad things about opting for the “policing” policy. Not every policeman is competent, and some will be power tripping or trying to further some sort of personal crusade at the expense of professionalism.

Surbrus.6942:

Sublimatio.6981:

So what if I spawn 3 phantasmal duelists to attack risen priest of melandru and hide behind a wall? a) priest can’t move so he is in his spawn point b) he doesn’t even try to attack me or my clones, he just does nothing. and i do nothing, except my duelists killing it safely.
now i dont understand – is it a design flaw and not my fault, or am i exploiting?

I think it mainly depends on how zealous and liberal the particular Anet dungeon policeman is who sees you. I know of someone who received a ban after literally AFK 2-manning, face-tanking some boss kills in full Cleric gear. The ban message was extremely vague, and he had done nothing else out of the ordinary that he suspected could warrant a ban.

Yeah that’s why I’m curious, the dev post says “Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design”
And yet I am SAFE in a certain SPOT so it’s kinda hard to judge if I’m doing something smart or something wrong

Sublimatio.6981:

so it’s kinda hard to judge if I’m doing something smart or something wrong

And that is exactly why the idea of policing player behaviour over influencing player behaviour through incentives is not only stalling the process of fixing things, potentially spending more time/effort in the long run, but also giving a very bad impression to players.

Sure, some consumers with a frightening degree of corporate devotion might call you stupid for not seeing what is “obvious” (those opinions are worthless and should be disregarded), but it really is an issue. If it is confusing to people who actually have read these dungeon policing threats, just imagine how confusing it is to the vast majority of players who don’t even know about a single post in a random thread on the official forum.

100 find a spot
200 target the boss
300 make sure your autoattack is enabled
350 make sure the boss is taking damage
400 go watch some cat videos
500 if you and the boss are both still alive goto 400
600 if the boss is dead → exploit
700 if you are dead → not an exploit

This should cover most cases. For the rest …

If you have to ask then it is probably an exploit.

This does push any sort of ‘on the fence situation’ like Sublimatio is trying to do into the exploit side of things.

Sublimatio.6981:

Yeah that’s why I’m curious, the dev post says “Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design”
And yet I am SAFE in a certain SPOT so it’s kinda hard to judge if I’m doing something smart or something wrong

Something smart: Ducking behind a pillar to avoid an attack.
Something wrong: Standing in a junk pile that allows you to shoot out at the boss but the boss cannot hit you.

Sublimatio.6981:

<snip>

Yeah that’s why I’m curious, the dev post says “Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design”
And yet I am SAFE in a certain SPOT so it’s kinda hard to judge if I’m doing something smart or something wrong

Is where you’re standing causing the Enemy to act contrary to how it wants to? In this case No, you’re simply intelligently utilizing the limitations of bad design. If he wanted to run to you and you stood somewhere he couldn’t then it’d be an exploit. It’s not your fault the guy won’t adjust to attack you basically.

That’s what I got from Chris’s post.

And BTW, Thanks for the post Chris.

Lindbur.2537:

Surbrus.6942:

This is a horrible use of time and effort on Anet’s part. Scrap the dungeon police idea, and instead allocate those resources to programmers so that these issues can simply be addressed in a more permanent way.

In other words: Fire the Game Security team and hire new programmers to fix all the bugs.

Whatever suits you, then. Give people an inch and they cry for a yard.

I know right? That’s basically what I was thinking while reading some of these comments lol.

First of all:
Thank you for a detailed answer!

Something that I want tell about this:

100 find a spot
200 target the boss
300 make sure your autoattack is enabled
350 make sure the boss is taking damage
400 go watch some cat videos
500 if you and the boss are both still alive goto 400
600 if the boss is dead -> exploit
700 if you are dead -> not an exploit

WROOONG!
Sure, 90% of all safespots are just spots where you just jump on and go afk while your character keeps using autoattack.

BUT: there are also safespots which are tricky. In some cases, like AC P3, it`s not enough to jump on the spot and check wheter Boss keeps aggroing you or not.
If you fail to make the NPC (Grast) follow you, you will die because of the cave-in(AOE) of the Boss.

Just wanted to clear out that some safespots are so easy that simply everyone can use them, others require know-how/skill, and even after several tries during one run you still can spend 10min to just get there where you are safe!

Lindbur.2537:

Surbrus.6942:

This is a horrible use of time and effort on Anet’s part. Scrap the dungeon police idea, and instead allocate those resources to programmers so that these issues can simply be addressed in a more permanent way.

In other words: Fire the Game Security team and hire new programmers to fix all the bugs.

Whatever suits you, then. Give people an inch and they cry for a yard.

They should not of laid of people from the Dungeon Team from the beginning. Give them more time to refine dungeon mechanics early on and perhaps we wouldn’t be seeing this 2 years since release.

I think it’s an awesome that at the very least, Chris included us on some perspectives that we weren’t previously included on. However, this does not mean the community is going to stop asking questions, and let the whole ordeal go. Anet, you are obvious short on staff from the dungeon perspective, you have no one really working on anything to improve QoL of the existing dungeons (prove me wrong here, please). So why not start listening to your player feedbacks. Obviously you guys weren’t that clever to test all the jump tricks and path skips like some of these guys here did, so get a fix list started and tell us what you are doing/going to do about these issues!

This is some great communication. Thanks Chris.
Whether or not some of you agree/disagree with these clarification, at least we’re getting some discussion now.

It’s interesting to me how ArenaNet decides what sorts of punishments are warranted for what sort of behavior. They will “temporarily suspend” accounts (if they can catch them) for using exploits to sell dungeon runs, but permanently ban people for crafting 10 snowflakes. I would love to intern for customer support just to find out the logic behind these decisions.

Chris Cleary.8017:

I’ll be very clear here:
If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot”, that player will be moved out of the safe spot and warned (via in-game text). If they are caught again, that account will be temporarily suspended.

If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot” and selling the dungeon run, that account will be temporarily suspended without warning.

If Anet is spending time and money on “hall monitors” I think that the focus has been grossly bent. Perhaps there should be more time/attention/money placed on fixing issues with this game that affect game play and not as a virtual police force banning people paying for and playing in an environment that the Developers did not fully vet – ie, QA testing with the mindset of a player instead of a developer.

Chris Cleary.8017:

Standing on a rock/ledge/platform while the boss attempts to hit you from below (yes there are some bosses that still have abilities that hit you), is a problem with pathing and the boss not resetting when it can’t reach the target. This is exploiting a bug.

[…]

Standing outside a stationary boss’s range is not an exploit, the boss “should” reset after an extended period of time, but is not. This is an example of poor boss implementation, and not an exploit.

Am I the only one not getting the difference here? The example is both times “the boss should reset, but isn’t” and one time it’s a bug, the other time it’s “poor implementation”. The only difference is: In one case the (boss) designer made the mistake, in the other case the programmer. I, as a player (and as a software developer by the way) find it hard to judge from the outside if something is a real bug or simply “unintended behaviour”.

Chris Cleary.8017:

Avoiding mechanics by standing in a singular area isn’t an exploit, it’s possible bad dungeon design (for example the cage room in the newer flame and frost fractal…sorry I can’t remember the name of the dungeon it’s late). In that fight there are areas in which you can avoid almost the entire fight mechanic, that’s an example of poor dungeon mechanic design.

Standing on a rock/ledge/platform while the boss attempts to hit you from below (yes there are some bosses that still have abilities that hit you), is a problem with pathing and the boss not resetting when it can’t reach the target. This is exploiting a bug.

Kiting and using geometry (running AROUND pillars and such) is a perfectly valid tactic.

Standing outside a stationary boss’s range is not an exploit, the boss “should” reset after an extended period of time, but is not. This is an example of poor boss implementation, and not an exploit.

Using terrain to block/dodge boss mechanics is also considered a valid tactic (standing behind a pillar when a boss charges).

At this point we are getting very nitpicky at each individual boss and each mechanic in question. I’m sure most of you are aware of what is an exploit and what is a mechanic/tactic. We are working on fixing these “Safe Spots”, but it’s going to take some time to get it done, and will probably happen over time. (Sorry I am not going to go into particulars for fights/changes)

I’ll be very clear here:
If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot”, that player will be moved out of the safe spot and warned (via in-game text). If they are caught again, that account will be temporarily suspended.

If a GM finds a player that is using a “Safe Spot” and selling the dungeon run, that account will be temporarily suspended without warning.

Hello Chris. First and foremost, thanks for that very insteresing update. Could you please yet clarify the following case as, looking at your post, I am not sure whether it is considered as an exploit or not.

Caudecus Manor, path 2: while fighting Turmaine, many groups bring it to the upper platform in the tree. From there, Turmaine main attack works normally (the frost/poison aoe). However, from that location, Turmaine “plague form” charge skill does not work because of the altitude difference.

You said “Using terrain to block/dodge boss mechanics is also considered a valid tactic (standing behind a pillar when a boss charges)” but I think that the case explained hereabove is a bordeline case since it relies more on a passive effect of terrain than on a reactive use and prevents the boss charge rather than blocking it (as I understand blocking). Moreover, the terrain effect used here is altitude difference, which is prohibited in the case of players standing on a rock/crate….

aRestless.6213:

Am I the only one not getting the difference here?

Yes.

Try reading it again.

RemiRome.8495:

aRestless.6213:

Am I the only one not getting the difference here?

Yes.

Try reading it again.

I know that the difference is a moving boss versus a stationary one. But I could put it the other way around: “Having a spot in a bosses’ aggro range that isn’t reachable by him is poor dungeon design.” An arguable point of view, is it not?

My point is, that the given explanations might give clarification for some specific cases, but cannot be used as a global rule of thumb for what’s an exploit and what isn’t. I would have been happier with an additional, general statement such as “taking benefit from unintended behaviour is fine, while provoking unintended behaviour is not”.