Guild Wars 2

Obtena.7952:

Again, you don’t think Anet shouldn’t point the finger at the people exploiting … for exploiting? That must be another one of those ‘interesting’ ideas ….

But it’s not a exploit. Both the bundle and the trait are working as intended. And Frost Gun is hardly the only bundle with absurd power scaling. I seem to recall a bundle I found when doing world complete that had a nade skill that would did so much damage as to 1shot everything that wasn’t a champion.

A exploit is SAB box mistakenly granting immunity to negative status effects, because that is not the designed functionality of the box.
Chill spam is the designed purpose of Frost Gun. Frost Gun is not a exploit. Unintended probably, but to label people as exploiters is absurd.

Obtena.7952:

Anet fixing this situation is an admission of the mistake that was made here; like I already pointed out to you, these situations are typically the result of the developer creating the situation so there is no way for Anet to avoid that admission.

You simply don’t like the fact that they correctly identify players for abusing it and sending a warning. It’s the player’s risk to ignore this warning. Presenting irrelevant, alternative exploitable situations would be considered rather weak evidence to justify exploiting, but that’s just me I guess.

That really is just you, because every other person identifies that as the proper way to present an argument. The fact that you label relevant evidence as irrelevant, then finish off with ‘Arenanet can do whatever they like’ is deflection.

No. They could’ve admitted they made a mistake by saying ‘we neglected to update this skill after changes to deathly chill was made, .’. this item is locked for the time being’. That’s how you admit a mistake.

Ghost thief changes and frostgun changes are the ideal comparison scenarios, both scenarios involve players using skills that have not mechanically faulted, but the synergy in the context they reside in produced an unintended effect. Yet one is labelled as an exploit and one is not, and you have failed to answer that.

Ramoth.9064:

Obtena.7952:

Anet fixing this situation is an admission of the mistake that was made here; like I already pointed out to you, these situations are typically the result of the developer creating the situation so there is no way for Anet to avoid that admission.

You simply don’t like the fact that they correctly identify players for abusing it and sending a warning. It’s the player’s risk to ignore this warning. Presenting irrelevant, alternative exploitable situations would be considered rather weak evidence to justify exploiting, but that’s just me I guess.

That really is just you, because every other person identifies that as the proper way to present an argument. The fact that you label relevant evidence as irrelevant, then finish off with ‘Arenanet can do whatever they like’ is deflection.

No. They could’ve admitted they made a mistake by saying ‘we neglected to update this skill after changes to deathly chill was made, .’. this item is locked for the time being’. That’s how you admit a mistake.

Ghost thief changes and frostgun changes are the ideal comparison scenarios, both scenarios involve players using skills that have not mechanically faulted, but the synergy in the context they reside in produced an unintended effect. Yet one is labelled as an exploit and one is not, and you have failed to answer that.

Exactly. It’s a double standard. Rather than admit this item was overlooked the users are made out to be exploiters. Where is the exploit?

Is it in the frost gun itself? Well it was used as it was designed, and did as it was designed to do.

Was it using the frost gun in combination with deathly chill? So now using anything in combination with deathly chill is an exploit? Cause that is the precedent you are setting.

Was it the abuse of deathly chill itself? The only thing that even allows condi necros (the only truely viable dps spec) to have competative dps?

Either kittening fix the issue with deathly chill not being properly designed, or kitten about people using it as a means of damage. This is the corner Anet has paited necromancer into. Either the class is hell trash, or it literally breaks fight mechanics because of bad/broken design.

See Mursaat over seem, and deimos for more.
See WvW for more.
See lifesteal for more.

It would be different if Anet made a statement on this particular case unlike with the auto skill cast botting scenario, but they have not.

I’m just glad that they didn’t nerf the trait itself, since anet is pretty “wild” when it comes to balance…

All that I can say at this point is that it’s players that take the risk for using exploits. If you think weak semantic arguments can ‘save you’ from Anet taking action against you for using an exploitable situation, you will learn the hard way if that’s necessary. It’s not about any admissions or pointing fingers; if you use exploits, you break the TOS and you can be held accountable and dealt with as Anet sees fit.

Obtena.7952:

All that I can say at this point is that it’s players that take the risk for using exploits. If you think weak semantic arguments can ‘save you’ from Anet taking action against you for using an exploitable situation, you will learn the hard way if that’s necessary. It’s not about any admissions or pointing fingers; if you use exploits, you break the TOS and you can be held accountable and dealt with as Anet sees fit.

You keep missing the point. I made this topic, and its about them admitting mistakes, not your holier than thou arguments about what’s right or wrong. This topic is about their consistency in dealing with the same issues, which isnt very consistent at all.

And if you want to see a deflection here is one: you know those dailies pvp rooms? Ever been in one of those? Congratulations, you’ve violated the ToS by match fixing.

That’s not really a valid point to make; it goes without saying that devs make mistakes on programming and developing the game. This isn’t new or unique to GW2 or any other MMO; there is no need to apologize to players for any mistake that players can exploit; they exist, we know it, they know it. The existence of these things are honest mistakes; you’re trying to vilify Anet for them to deflect the attention from the fact that players are exploiting the situation; that’s unreasonable. Take some responsibility, be honest and take a mature approach.

In addition, it’s not even clear what they would apologize for … it’s certainly not because they correctly called out players for using exploits. It would be rather stupid for them to be wasting time apologizing for all the things in game that are wrong. There simply isn’t any value in making blanket apologizes for bugs and oversights like this.

Are they consistent? Exploits are addressed according to many factors and it’s up to Anet to decide which ones to communicate and address in what order. Anyone that thinks they can just rush out, apologize for all the ‘mistakes’ and fix every exploit in the game has a very unrealistic view of how MMO’s are developed.

That still doesn’t change the fact that getting some absolution from Anet removes guilt for exploiting, which I think this thread does a very good job giving the indication.

Obtena.7952:

That’s not really a valid point to make; it goes without saying that devs make mistakes on programming and developing the game. This isn’t new or unique to GW2 or any other MMO; there is no need to apologize to players for any mistake that players can exploit; they exist, we know it, they know it. The existence of these things are honest mistakes; you’re trying to vilify Anet for them to deflect the attention from the fact that players are exploiting the situation; that’s unreasonable. Take some responsibility, be honest and take a mature approach.

In addition, it’s not even clear what they would apologize for … it’s certainly not because they correctly called out players for using exploits. It would be rather stupid for them to be wasting time apologizing for all the things in game that are wrong. There simply isn’t any value in making blanket apologizes for bugs and oversights like this.

Are they consistent? Exploits are addressed according to many factors and it’s up to Anet to decide which ones to communicate and address in what order. Anyone that thinks they can just rush out, apologize for all the ‘mistakes’ and fix every exploit in the game has a very unrealistic view of how MMO’s are developed.

That still doesn’t change the fact that getting some absolution from Anet removes guilt for exploiting, which I think this thread does a very good job giving the indication.

You’re doing a very good job of misinterpreting this topic. Developers are not gods, if they screw up they should own up to it. They should have consistency in dealing with exploits, if they are all about setting a good example. Again, I did not in any way advocate the use of exploits, thats completely with you and your misinterpretation. Your challenge on the frost gun being an exploit is already a shaky argument as pointed out by several people in this topic alone.

Consistency sets precedence which is how similar issues are avoided in future, consistency that Arenanet fails to show again and again. By the way, I am extremely doubtful you actually develop MMOs, so there’s little point in telling others ’that’s not how MMOs’ are made. Even Gaile Grey herself would remind people ‘you have no idea what we go through’.

Again, if you want to go and tell people exploits are wrong, make your own topic, as far as this one is concerned you’ve missed the point, the road and the kittening highway.

By the way, I like how you try to avoid every argument people make, as invalid, even when the topic creator is debating the actual topic.

Obtena.7952:

Anyone that thinks they can just rush out, apologize for all the ‘mistakes’ and fix every exploit in the game has a very unrealistic view of how MMO’s are developed.

I think you mean every over sight issue. Because that is how bugs and exploits happen. Unlike you possibly, I actually have experience developing games.

And I would never call accidental synergy between two things that both worked as intended, an exploit. Abusive? Maybe. But an exploit? I think you need to look up the meaning of that word, because you clearly have no idea.

And that’s not a semantic argument, as you attempted to call it earlier. You are just plain incorrect.

And another topic got Obtena’ed by his self-imagined knowledge what developers really want and mean and only he knows and should be right about it. Be careful dude that your nose doesn’t get brown from all the whiteknighting and behind-kissing.

FrostDraco.8306:

Obtena.7952:

Anyone that thinks they can just rush out, apologize for all the ‘mistakes’ and fix every exploit in the game has a very unrealistic view of how MMO’s are developed.

I think you mean every over sight issue. Because that is how bugs and exploits happen. Unlike you possibly, I actually have experience developing games.

And I would never call accidental synergy between two things that both worked as intended, an exploit. Abusive? Maybe. But an exploit? I think you need to look up the meaning of that word, because you clearly have no idea.

What it’s called is irrelevant; clearly, Frost Gun and it’s chill proc with deathly chill wasn’t intended was it? And the fact that people we using effects in unintended ways … is not an exploit? I won’t get into a definition argument with you … we all know what happens to things that work in unintended ways … and what happens to players that abuse those unintended effects. I think some people need to pull their head out of the sand here.

Ramoth.9064:

You’re doing a very good job of misinterpreting this topic. Developers are not gods, if they screw up they should own up to it. They should have consistency in dealing with exploits, if they are all about setting a good example.

I’m not sure what you’re expectation is here. Everytime Anet fixes something, it’s an admission it wasn’t correctly done. That’s the very nature of an evolving MMO. I mean, what do you expect to come of this concept of “owning up to it” … OK, Anet makes a full blown “I’m sorry we make mistakes in our game” thread … so what? There is literally no point in doing such a thing; the mistakes in this game vary to such a big degree and exist in such wide numbers that it would be pointless for them to do that. The egregious thing here is that players are exploiting a situation … and you want ANET to apologize. I can’t even begin to understand how that works; where the offense is to players that Anet needs to be apologetic?

This isn’t a rhetorical question here: what is the ‘good example’ that you expect from Anet with regards to how they address these situations? Are you mad that you think their priorities are wrong? That’s not our decision; we don’t develop the game. No one here has enough information to make a judgement on what the priorities should be.

Lol what are you even on about? Gaile wrote a forum post already, it doesnt take any more time to write it with humility than to write it than the way they did now.

So what, have you taken off your ‘im a developer,too’ hat and put on your ’I’m arenanet’s secretary’? Because you seem to know an awful lot about their time constraints. If changing the tone of their forum posting takes that much time they have pretty big issues. So far the only person with theit head in the sand is you and your arenanet can do no wrong flag post.

And we all know you arent debating with frostdraco because you have nothing to argue with. So dont go saying ‘we all know’ when people dont agree with you. See what i did there?

And there is a point to humility, it generates goodwill, it generates rapport with your clients. And when the issue is so victimless its worth it. Btw, been enjoying those dailies pvp rooms have you?

Obtena.7952:

What it’s called is irrelevant; clearly, Frost Gun and it’s chill proc with deathly chill wasn’t intended was it? And the fact that people we using effects in unintended ways … is not an exploit?

We have no idea what is or is not intended by arenanet. The only way we as players can make judgements about what is or is not a exploit is by precedent that the developers set.

By declaring Frost Gun a exploit, ArenaNet is setting the precedent that using <item> that interacts in a positive manner with <trait> is a exploit. Which is a huge problem because tons of bundles have interaction with various traits. Are those all exploits? Is picking up a Ice Bow on my necro a exploit? Are all bundles with chill skills a exploit? What about grenade bundles that interact with engi traits?

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

What it’s called is irrelevant; clearly, Frost Gun and it’s chill proc with deathly chill wasn’t intended was it? And the fact that people we using effects in unintended ways … is not an exploit?

We have no idea what is or is not intended by arenanet. The only way we as players can make judgements about what is or is not a exploit is by precedent that the developers set.

By declaring Frost Gun a exploit, ArenaNet is setting the precedent that using <item> that interacts in a positive manner with <trait> is a exploit. Which is a huge problem because tons of bundles have interaction with various traits. Are those all exploits? Is picking up a Ice Bow on my necro a exploit? Are all bundles with chill skills a exploit? What about grenade bundles that interact with engi traits?

I’ve been saying this all along, if this synergy is considered an exploit then so should ghost thieving. The precedents set this far are tenuous at best. Which is why the only rebuttals Obtena can come up with have no evidential support.

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

What it’s called is irrelevant; clearly, Frost Gun and it’s chill proc with deathly chill wasn’t intended was it? And the fact that people we using effects in unintended ways … is not an exploit?

We have no idea what is or is not intended by arenanet. The only way we as players can make judgements about what is or is not a exploit is by precedent that the developers set.

By declaring Frost Gun a exploit, ArenaNet is setting the precedent that using <item> that interacts in a positive manner with <trait> is a exploit. Which is a huge problem because tons of bundles have interaction with various traits. Are those all exploits? Is picking up a Ice Bow on my necro a exploit? Are all bundles with chill skills a exploit? What about grenade bundles that interact with engi traits?

There is no problem here … anyone that can’t conclude that the way Frost Gun and Deathly Chill were interacting to give unprecedented stacks of bleed resulting in ridiculous damage levels is just being obtuse. It’s not getting nerfed because of procs or synergy or anything like that … it’s getting nerfed because of unreasonable and easy to access damage levels. Nice try guys. Let’s not pretend this throws into question procing effects, because that’s obviously not the WHY for the change here.

Obtena.7952:

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

What it’s called is irrelevant; clearly, Frost Gun and it’s chill proc with deathly chill wasn’t intended was it? And the fact that people we using effects in unintended ways … is not an exploit?

We have no idea what is or is not intended by arenanet. The only way we as players can make judgements about what is or is not a exploit is by precedent that the developers set.

By declaring Frost Gun a exploit, ArenaNet is setting the precedent that using <item> that interacts in a positive manner with <trait> is a exploit. Which is a huge problem because tons of bundles have interaction with various traits. Are those all exploits? Is picking up a Ice Bow on my necro a exploit? Are all bundles with chill skills a exploit? What about grenade bundles that interact with engi traits?

There is no problem here … anyone that can’t conclude that the way Frost Gun and Deathly Chill were interacting to give unprecedented stacks of bleed is just being obtuse. It’s not getting nerfed because of procs or synergy or anything like that … it’s getting nerfed because of unreasonable and easy to access damage levels. Nice try guys.

Nice try obtuse. We arent debating if it should get nerfed or not. We are arguing whether it is an exploit or not. After 2 pages of this i expected you to clue into what the topic of discussion is.

kitten autocorrect, i meant obtena

Oh btw, i guess wooden potatoes should be getting a ban now because he recorded an ‘exploit’. Thats a precedent been set in the past. Consistency people.

And you keep saying ‘everyone this’ ‘anyone that’. Not everyone agrees with you. Its frighteningly obvious.

I think it’s really disingenuous of you or anyone else to try to make this seem like it’s being changed because of procing synergy … that IS being obtuse. It’s clear why this is being changed and if the argument is about whether this is an exploit, make no mistake … ANET defines that, not us … and based on their response, you should have your answer to that question.

Perhaps I should ask again: What this good example Anet is supposed to be looks like … what apology you seem to be looking for. You seem admant it’s some reasonable requirement in this situation and if you’re genuine, you have reasonable answers to those questions; if not, you’re just upset for little reason and you’re being called out for it. It’s hardly fair to ask for those things in such a vague way, then accuse Anet of not doing it.

So what is it?

Obtena.7952:

I think it’s really disingenuous of you or anyone else to try to make this seem like it’s being changed because of synergy … that IS being obtuse. It’s clear why this is being changed and if the argument is about whether this is an exploit, make no mistake … ANET defines that, not us. Based on their response, you should have your answer to that question.

Perhaps I should ask again: What this good example Anet is supposed to be looks like … what apology you seem to be looking for. You seem admant it’s some reasonable requirement in this situation and if you’re genuine, you have reasonable answers to those questions; if not, you’re just upset for little reason and you’re being called out for it. It’s hardly fair to ask for those things in such a vague way, then accuse Anet of not doing it.

So what is it?

I’ve already answered this previously, but you had your hands over your ears.

“The frost gun has been locked currently because of unintended effects following the update to deathly chill”.

So.simple. time to report wooden potatoes now i guess. I think its disingenuous for you to answer on behalf of anyone other than yourself.

Yes .. those unintended effects are massive amounts of unprecedented damage. Any other interpretation is simply ridiculous and disingenuous. Procing from traits is intended … 100+ bleed stacks from a player isn’t. Any reasonable and informed player can conclude the damage is the reason for the change, not the procing synergy.

So back to this good example, apologetic Anet … what’s that look like? What is the apology actually for? From where I sit, this is a standard game fix of an exploitable situation … Where is the offense to the player that warrants the apology?

Obtena.7952:

Yes .. those unintended effects are massive amounts of unprecedented damage. Any other interpretation is simply ridiculous and disingenuous. Procing from traits is intended … 100+ bleed stacks from a player isn’t. Any reasonable and informed player can conclude the damage is the reason for the change, not the procing synergy.

So back to this good example, apologetic Anet … what’s that look like? What is the apology actually for? From where I sit, this is a standard game fix of an exploitable situation … Where is the offense to the player that warrants the apology?

O.M.G. the apology is for labelling people as exploiters. Which could’ve all bren avoided if they had announced the item block the way I did. Sure YOU arent offended but this topic shows that you dont represent everyone (even though you think you do). Again, I’m not discussing the block itself, i am discussing arenanets lacl of consistency.

I don’t get that apology … people that exploit are exploiters. If people don’t want to be labelled as exploiters, then they shouldn’t do questionable activities in the game. What else do you think they should be called?

maybe people should be less offended by what they are called and pay more attention to how they act in the game, then they wouldn’t have to be offended for acting in questionable ways …

Why do these discussions always boil down to people not wanting to be accountable for their actions?

Obtena.7952:

I don’t get that apology … people that exploit are exploiters. What else do you think they should be called?

Its very clear there are many things you don’t get. You needn’t remind me. I’ve just showed you that the situation could’ve been handled without using the word exploit, which numerous people have presented valid arguments for this, all you’ve been saying is nein nein nein.

Look at Arenanet’s consistency in dealing with these matters. Its all over the place.

I don’t think thy need to be called anything else. I’m not into labelling people, which if you’ve been tuning in, is kinda what I’m talking about.

It could have done lots of things but why would they do that? Why would the have a soft stance and a lame response to this? Exploiting the game is a serious issue. The strength of the response is appropriate to the situation. It not a label if it’s true. perhaps the idea here is; if you call out people appropriately, they might think twice before they do it again … See? being called an exploiter isn’t fun is it?

I get that people don’t like getting in trouble … well, it’s deserved. What do you want? Hugs and a safe spot with a get out of trouble free card? I don’t think that’s reasonable.

Good for you. Clearly other people don’t agree. Whether it is an exploit is debatable at best with many arguments from me and others proving so, and proving Arenanets lack of consistency.

Btw, have your purchased the forgeman’s raiment from the dungeon vendor? You have havent you. You’ve been exploiting. If we are all about unintended effects = exploit.

Yeah they might think twice. New players will have no dea what is an exploit and what isnt because of how inconsistent Arenanets ruling on this stuff is.

You have no response in regards to their consistency and prevents. Are you going to start dating bring inconsistent is a good thing now? Are you employed at Arenanet?

The frost gun was spreading Jormag’s corruption.
Good thing it’s locked.. if someone want to have a similar non-broken open world funny time it can use engi’s set..

Ramoth.9064:

You have no response in regards to their consistency and prevents. Are you going to start dating bring inconsistent is a good thing now? Are you employed at Arenanet?

If I don’t have a response to that, neither should you … yet you seem to think you have a firm grasp on how Anet gets this wrong. Based on what, I can’t imagine because I’m willing to bet you aren’t employed at Anet either … that sword has two edges.

The best part is that isn’t not about right or wrong … it’s simply how Anet defines what exploits are and how they decide to deal with them. You can claim there is inconsistency all you want … that’s the kind of argument that a person makes to claim some exploits are OK to use. Being obtuse, clueless or ignorant will not excuse anyone from the consequences of using exploits, ever. That’s not just a GW2 thing … it’s every MMO I’ve ever played; it’s the minimum expected behaviour between an organization that runs the game and the people that play it. I mean, since when did “Don’t cheat” have to become a rule that people would be offended if they got caught?

There is no debate if this is an exploit. It’s not a vote between players … Anet defines that. The irony is that you quote the part from Anet that literally tells you it’s an exploit. What more do you want?

Obtena.7952:

Ramoth.9064:

You have no response in regards to their consistency and prevents. Are you going to start dating bring inconsistent is a good thing now? Are you employed at Arenanet?

If I don’t have a response to that, neither should you … yet you seem to think you have a firm grasp on how Anet gets this wrong. Based on what, I can’t imagine because I’m willing to bet you aren’t employed at Anet either … that sword has two edges.

There is no debate if this is an exploit unless you are THAT clueless or simply lying. It’s not a vote … Anet defines that.

Unlike you I’ve actually shown cases of Arenanets inconsistency. I havent been speaking on their behalf like you have. Every valid argument that has been laid out against you has been met with a rebuttal with little to no evidence to support it.

And thanks to this inconsistency even YOU have been freely exploiting the game, if you go by this definition of everything unintended = exploit.

Ghost thief. You have NO answer for this. Completely relevant. Same scenario.

Get it in your skull, I’m not sating the skill isnt broken. Not all broken things are exploit. And i dont know about you but i dont live in a communist society where I can challenge the overlords definition of the status quo

I don’t get the hang up you have with the inconsistency and I’m not attempting to say they aren’t … but there is a reason for this inconsistent response that you don’t seem to want to recognize. Are you saying that every single unintended action any player takes should be met with the same response, regardless of the severity? That makes sense how? I mean, you’re complaining about how Anet is labeling and treating customers poorly, then you turn around and imply there is a problem with having various levels of appropriate response for different situations as inconsistent … and that’s a bad thing? OK then. That seems like a pretty good treatment of players if you ask me. The response SHOULD fit the offense so yes, by the vary nature of treating people reasonably … you see inconsistencies between different situations. I don’t get how that’s bad and I don’t get how you can have a discussion with those conflicting ideas in a reasonable way.

Then after all that you’re looking for an apology for exploiters being ‘labeled’ as exploiters as the icing … laughable!

I guess we will just have to live with inconsistency, so that people get labelled and dealt with appropriately based on the severity of the exploit.

Obtena.7952:

It’s not a vote between players … Anet defines that.

We aren’t saying that ArenaNet can’t call it a exploit.

We are saying that ArenaNet’s choice of calling it a exploit is moronic since it implies that using trait synergies is a exploit. They are literally implying that Necros trying to maximize Deathly Chill is a exploit.

Obtena.7952:

That’s not just a GW2 thing … it’s every MMO I’ve ever played; it’s the minimum expected behaviour between an organization that runs the game and the people that play it. I mean, since when did “Don’t cheat” have to become a rule that people would be offended if they got caught?

In GW2 and every other MMO I’ve ever played, the use of the term “exploit” exclusively refers to the exploitation of bugs.

Frost Gun was not bugged and neither was Deathly Chill. So how where we to know it was a exploit? There is no precedent in any game for declaring trait synergies a exploit.

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

It’s not a vote between players … Anet defines that.

We aren’t saying that ArenaNet can’t call it a exploit.

We are saying that ArenaNet’s choice of calling it a exploit is moronic since it implies that using trait synergies is a exploit. They are literally implying that Necros trying to maximize Deathly Chill is a exploit.

No, that’s what YOU say Anet is implying. I didn’t get that implication at all. It’s the result of the synergy, not the act of the procing that is the concern Anet has here. If you can’t see why the result of this synergy is exploitable … then I can only think you really don’t know what’s being discussed here.

If you couldn’t understand that procing 100+ bleed stacks consistently wasn’t some unintended result from this synergy, then I can only accuse you of not being honest with yourself.

Obtena.7952:

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

It’s not a vote between players … Anet defines that.

We aren’t saying that ArenaNet can’t call it a exploit.

We are saying that ArenaNet’s choice of calling it a exploit is moronic since it implies that using trait synergies is a exploit. They are literally implying that Necros trying to maximize Deathly Chill is a exploit.

No, that’s what YOU say Anet is implying. I didn’t get that implication at all, probably because I understand the result of the synergy here. If you can’t see why this is an exploit … well, that only tells me you have much to learn about the game.

Ice Bow is a major DPS increase for condi necros using Deathly Chill. Is using Ice Bow a exploit?

This bundle is required to do a heart mission. That bundle’s autoattack applies roughly the same amount of chill as Frost Gun’s Autoattack. Is doing that heart mission on a DC necro a exploit?

Greatsword is used by condi necro due to whirl finishers procing Deathly Chill. Greatsword was never intended to be used as a condi weapon. Is condi GS necro a exploit?

Obtena.7952:

If you couldn’t understand that procing 100+ bleed stacks consistently wasn’t some unintended result from this synergy, then I can only accuse you of not being honest with yourself.

Condi GS necro can already break the 100 bleed threshold, explicitly because of Deathly Chill.

Dishonest would be believing that Frost Gun was balanced. But overpowered is not the same as a exploit.

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

Crinn.7864:

Obtena.7952:

It’s not a vote between players … Anet defines that.

We aren’t saying that ArenaNet can’t call it a exploit.

We are saying that ArenaNet’s choice of calling it a exploit is moronic since it implies that using trait synergies is a exploit. They are literally implying that Necros trying to maximize Deathly Chill is a exploit.

No, that’s what YOU say Anet is implying. I didn’t get that implication at all, probably because I understand the result of the synergy here. If you can’t see why this is an exploit … well, that only tells me you have much to learn about the game.

Ice Bow is a major DPS increase for condi necros using Deathly Chill. Is using Ice Bow a exploit?

I don’t define that, Anet does. If Anet thinks it’s an exploit, they will fix that too. What my opinion is here matters little. Again, it’s the RESULT that concerns Anet … does Ice Bow with Deathly chill give the same result as Frost Gun with Deathly Chill? Not even close. You’re thinking about this incorrectly; you made assumptions about why this was considered an exploit, then you went to town with it to question Anet’s reasoning because of other traits or effects procing. Trait procing isn’t the reason, it’s the damage that’s the concern.

Obtena.7952:

I don’t define that, Anet does. If Anet thinks it’s an exploit, they will fix that too. What my opinion is here matters little. Again, it’s the RESULT that concerns Anet … does Ice Bow with Deathly chill give the same result as Frost Gun with Deathly Chill? Not even close. You’re thinking about this incorrectly.

Frost Gun was overpowered. Overpowered is not the same as a exploit.

Anet defines what is an exploit, not you or any other player. Is that a hard concept? Apparently for some people … it is.

Obtena.7952:

That’s your opinion but Anet defines what is an exploit.

And we are here to dispute that. Do you actually read? The message is I N C O N S I S T E N T.

Apparently its hard for you to understand other people have different values and opinions to you. But hey, one day they’ll likely cut off something you thought was OK to do thanks to their wishy washy consistency. Lets see you be up in arms about that too.

Are you seriously arguing the virtues of consistency for a business? Like consistency isnt needed or something?

Ramoth.9064:

Obtena.7952:

That’s your opinion but Anet defines what is an exploit.

And we are here to dispute that. Do you actually read? The message is I N C O N S I S T E N T.

I’m waiting for you to tell me how that matters. I’ve already explained why various situations requires different responses leading to what you call inconsistencies. Are caps a new way to avoid my reasonable questions? Maybe I need to write in caps to have a discussion with you as well?

This has nothing to do with understanding values and opinions. I’m simply asking you how inconsistency in their approach to various exploitable situations is unreasonable … given the fact that different exploitable situations require different responses. If you truly believe that inconsistency is such a bad approach to various situations, you have a reasonable answer to that. Perhaps we try again without the caps?

Ramoth.9064:

Are you seriously arguing the virtues of consistency for a business? Like consistency isnt needed or something?

So you’re equating Anet applying an appropriate level response to various exploitable situations as an inconsistency that’s inline with a lack of business acumen? That’s just wow. I guess if you call treating customers fairly with reasonable responses to questionable activities, then yeah I am arguing the for lack of consistency … because call me crazy, I just don’t think every single infraction deserves the same response.

Consistency matters because it shows competence? Im not going to explain to you why 1+1=2 i expected you to know that but upon reconsideration i may have been wrong in expecting even that.

Having different responses doesnt give you a free pass in being inconsistent. Theres no benefit in being inconsistent in the first place.

Yeah IRL lawsand judgements would be applied based on precedence which is a basis developed from you guess it, consistency.

How can they justify frost gun as an rxploit if ghost thieving isnt?

Oh btw you’ve accidentally put on your ‘im head of arenanet PR’ hat again. Just to remind you, you dint work there.

So applying the same level of response, regardless of the infraction for different situations just for consistency sake … shows competence? And you want Anet to treat customers fairly? That’s awesome. I’m bookmarking this thread. Definitely one of the more enlightening discussions I’ve seen for a while.

It’s easy for them to justify frost gun and not ghost thief . They don’t have the same result. Maybe if ghost theif applied 100+ bleed stacks on mobs on demand … it would probably get nerfed too. I don’t doubt it actually.

Different situations require different responses; inconsistency isn’t a result of incompetence; it’s dictated by the concept of having a reasonable response to the situation.

Obtena.7952:

So applying the same level of response, regardless of the infraction for different situations just for consistency sake … shows competence? And you want Anet to treat customers fairly? That’s awesome. I’m bookmarking this thread. Definitely one of the more enlightening discussions I’ve seen for a while.

Oooh now we get some insights on how Obtena manages his internet explorer. Yeah keep a copy of how you got scrubbed in an argument again, just like the Legendary Weapons topic from last year.

If ghost thief isnt an exploit then so shouldnt frost gun, or vice versa. Wow just wow. Such a simple thing to understand.

Ghost thief isnt an exploit? Giving a thief permanent invisibility while still doing fatal damage to real players? Thats not as severe as frost gun? You ate out of your mind. WJW.

It’s only simple if you don’t understand what makes it more complex. Anet defines what is an exploit. I mean, I think it’s pretty funny you’re equating the two at all. There are factors there you aren’t considering or even ignoring, just to create the illusion that this inconsistency theory holds water at all.

Again, I get you want to drag this out over the ghost thief … I don’t see how the existence of other exploits should prevent Anet fixing any particular one of them or justifies players USING anyone particular one of them … That’s a non-sequitur.

Obtena.7952:

It’s only simple if you don’t understand what makes it more complex. In fact … I don’t believe Anet has stated ghost thief is an exploit so … maybe a refresher is in order:

Anet defines what is an exploit. I mean, I think it’s pretty funny you’re equating the two at all. There are factors there you aren’t considering or even ignoring, just to create the illusion that this inconsistency theory holds water at all. Primarily, frost gun isn’t applicable in PVP, just to start. I won’t waste my time as the ghost theif argument has no impact on Anet declaring Frost gun an exploit. Who’s to say it’s not next?

You won’t waste your time because you have no valid argument for it. You see, I don’t work for Anet (just a refresher, neither do you) so I’m in every position to call them out. Which means it doesnt matter what they lay they lay down as the law because this topic is a discussion disputing that.

The only one ignoring anything is you. You who cant see how inconsistent it is allowing ghost theif not to be classified as an exploit when it operates on the same principle as a broken synnergy.

You are the only one dragging anything out at this point, you keep rehashing the same baseless rebuttals about being an upstanding citizen and all that kitten over and over again.

Oh wait, are you sayung Anet can do no wrong now? Are you really sure your undying love for them is thst blind?

So OK … You are RIGHT … ghost thief is an exploit!!!

Now what? Anet SHOULDN’T fix Frost Gun? People abusing the frost gun situation ARE NOT exploiters? … and yes, I admit Anet is inconsistent in their response because it’s a reasonable approach to different situations. I’m agreeing with all your points and …

Nothing changes. Anet has declare this an exploit. All the points you make have no impact on the fact that these situations are assessed and responded to on an individual case. I mean, how else can it be?

Again, you’re beef simply seems to be that Anet doesn’t consider YOUR own priorities for fixing exploits. I don’t even see how that relates to Frost gun … maybe you think it means they aren’t dealing with other ones? Who knows. Assumptions are bad.

Obtena.7952:

So OK … You are RIGHT … ghost thief is an exploit!!!

Now what? Anet SHOULDN’T fix Frost Gun? People abusing the frost gun situation ARE NOT exploiters? … and yes, I admit Anet is inconsistent in their response because it’s a reasonable approach to different situations. I’m agreeing with all your points and …

Nothing changes. Anet has declare this an exploit.

Well then, hypothetically if you worked for Arenanet (which you dont, btw, this is a hypothetical situation) they should clarify that ghost thieving is an exploit in n announcement.

I don’t see the need for it; they didn’t make the announcement because Frost Gun is an exploit … they announced it because people would go into the game and try to use it or buy it and it wouldn’t work. They simply didn’t want people to get ingame and go ‘WTH?, why my frost gun don’t work?" It’s simply a pre-emptive announcement. There is nothing to ‘buy’ to have a ghost thief; how would that announcement even look?

In fact, IIRC, they have never announced other exploits and you can bet there has been some. It just so happens that this one requires something that players might buy and waste money on and they want to mitigate that risk. You’re reading WAY too much into this announcement. Again, jumping to conclusions and making assumptions … bad. Anet is not going to start an exploits list, for various reasons, just like no other games do, for the same reasons. This is really just a PSA, I can’t believe you think there is some nefarious going on here! LAWL!

I didnt say theres something nefarious, so you’re right not to believe that. Hallucinating much?. I said they are inconsistent. They could tell people that permanent stealth is not intended for the health of the game? Simple? WJW

Hey, like I said, the point wasn’t to announce exploits, it was to give fair warning that Frost Gun was being disabled.

It’s inconsistent exactly for the reason I told you; each situation is different. I can see how an over-active imagination would lead you to the conclusion that Anet should be announcing other exploitable situations in the game, but I can assure you that will never happen. You can condemn that ‘inconsistency’ all you like, but it’s just the nature of the beast. It’s certainly no reason to ignore the mechanics of how Anet deals with them and give bad implications.

Have you even given it a thought as to what might happen if Anet start telling people what they consider exploits? I can assure that 30 years of MMO industry experience will all give you the same answer as to why that’s a terrible idea.

Obtena.7952:

Hey, like I said, the point wasn’t to announce exploits, it was to give fair warning that Frost Gun was being disabled.

It’s inconsistent exactly for the reason I told you; each situation is different. I can see how an over-active imagination would lead you to the conclusion that Anet should be announcing other exploitable situations in the game, but I can assure you that will never happen. You can condemn that ‘inconsistency’ all you like, but it’s just the nature of the beast. It’s certainly no reason to ignore the mechanics of how Anet deals with them and give bad implications.

Have you even given it a thought as to what might happen if Anet start telling people what they consider exploits? I can assure that 30 years of MMO industry experience will all give you the same answer as to why that’s a terrible idea.

Er, no, you’ve missed the point (again). They’ve come out and said that the frost gun is an exploit, which means, they are in the habit of labeling things exploits. This means one of two things, when seen in conjunction with a similar scenario, the ghost thief. Either they say ghost thief is also an exploit (which you did, when we awarded you hypothetical employment at Arenanet) or that frost gun should not be considered an exploit, since an incidence of greater severity happened, and not too long ago, which is the source of the inconsistency; the debate of this topic.

No one is asking them to make lists. Thats all part of the hallucinogens you’re on. They are already at the capacity to announce exploits, they should do it with more consistency.

No point has been missed; it’s a simple matter of understanding MMOs (at least for me) Let me ask you a question .. why do you think Anet made that thread? When was the last time Anet announced an exploit in this manner? What makes this situation different? What other MMO annouces exploits to players in the way you suggest should happen ‘for consistency’?

Sorry, it’s you that doesn’t get it. MMO devs don’t exploits known to players. MMO devs determine what things in their games are considered exploits. maybe not worth repeating but obviously, this requires an exception. Labeling things as exploits and making announcements to players about them are completely different things … of COURSE they determine what things are exploits … obviously they want to fix them. That goes without saying.

I mean, you’re asking them to make a post about other things that you consider exploits … that’s a list or whatever you want to call it; it’s irrelevant. For some reason, you’re hung up about the existence of other exploits you think they should announce because you misinterpreted the point of the Frost Gun post.

The LAST thing they should do, based on MMO industry experience, is announce exploits with more consistency … that’s just a bad idea. You clearly haven’t thought this through. If ‘consistency’ is the best reason you can come up with, you should have a wider survey of the MMO industry to educate yourself a little bit … and most people would think it’s obvious why game devs shouldn’t announce exploits … /shrug

Obtena.7952:

No point has been missed; it’s a simple matter of understanding MMOs (at least for me) Let me ask you a question .. why do you think Anet made that thread? When was the last time Anet announced an exploit in this manner? What makes this situation different? What other MMO annouces exploits to players in the way you suggest should happen ‘for consistency’?

Sorry, it’s you that doesn’t get it. MMO devs don’t make lists of exploits for players to read. MMO devs determine what things in their games are considered exploits. Labeling things as exploits and making announcements to players about them are completely different things … of COURSE they determine what things are exploits … obviously they want to fix them. That goes without saying.

I mean, you’re asking them to make a post about other things that you consider exploits … that’s a list or whatever you want to call it; it’s irrelevant. For some reason, you’re hung up about the existence of other exploits you think they should announce because you misinterpreted the point of the Frost Gun post.

You’ve been arguing over wordsmithing for the past several days actually.

The last time they announced an exploit was the SAB boomboxes, on the same day. And correctly done so mind you, it was an item that gave unintended effects, not born of synergy.

Oh right, you’re in ’I’m working for Arenanet’ mode again.

What makes this situation different is the precedent set by ghost thieving not very long ago. Whats this, the 5th time I’ve answered that question. If devs shouldn’t announce exploits then why did they do it twice in that one day? You’re not even making a semblance of sense now.

LMAO. No, you should go do surveys and educate yourself. See, I can do that too.

I don’t think knowing a minimum about the MMO industry means I work for Anet … I think it just means I pay attention, have an objective approach, can think … whatever you want to call it.

Again .. different situations require different approaches and everything you have presented is evidence of that, including the inconsistency of appropriate response based on the situation, including Frost Gun and SAB. Exploits don’t usually warrant an announcement; I mean, again, what announcement would they make for ghost thief? What’s the reason they would do it? You say it’s simple, only because you can’t see why it’s complex. SAB/Frost gun has announcements. I can see why, because I’m not bitter about losing to ghost thieves. Anet has reasons for making those annoucements.

Seems to me you just got an axe to grind about ghost thief and this is a really bad way to do it. Pretty funny you want to complain about ghost theif in a thread about Frost gun nerfs. GL with that.