Cool, but it’s a bad take, next time read the ToS where you specifically agree to accept blame for exactly that.
And that mage had fun. Was he hurting anyone? No. He was paying his own sub. Thinking what you believe about something with no negative effects on anyone else should be imposed on the world is no different than the many religious zealots through the history of man that have been guilty of mass genocide. It’s the same way of thinking.
Summary:
“Wahhh! Wow won’t let me cheat…”
If you find a glitch, bug, or a exploit, thats one thing.
if you continue to use/abuse it. You deserve to be banned.
blizzard doesn’t punish the exploiters though, they punish everyone else who didn’t get to participate in said “exploit”
He got you there lmao
Wow. Well said. By not reversing gains, sometimes egregious gains, they really are punishing the rest of the players.
I agree. I probably should have stated that it was an example of something that wasn’t a problem by the player, even though it was fixed afterward. Oh wait, I did…
I’m sure the priests in my example had fun getting free loot without any chance of failing as well. Any comment on that behavior? The one that I was actually using as an example of cheating without using an external hack…
Not only is this not relevant to my comment, it’s such a terrible attempt at equivalence. Are you sure you want to go on the record stating that support for punishing people breaking a legally binding agreement and objectively cheating is the moral equivalence of mass genocide?
Someof these people must be working for Blizzard
Lucky this ain’t my game because I would perma ban cheaters.
Really depends on severity and intent.
If you notice a CD disappears after re-logging try it and it works again and gives you another CD, that’s one thing.
But it’s pretty obvious it’s not supposed to reset by logging.
If you then go on and abuse that tens or hundreds of times, that’s something else. That’s exploiting with intent.
Problem is it appears Blizzard doesn’t want to spend the money to differentiate between the two or test things so fewer of these situations happen. They need to do at least one of those.
But I think in situations like this the burden is on Blizzard to be sure it was actually intentional and excessive since they do have some responsibility for leaving the door open and not blasting every communication channel they can that it’s considered an exploit.
I agree with this post, and I think it’s a recurring issue when Blizzard implements new systems.
They want to put in these complex and heavily involved systems into their game without adequate testing, leading to a lot of bugs and thus people will get banned, even if they weren’t aware that an exploit was occurring in the first place (read: Players Banned for Tailoring Exploit).
They should either tone down the complexity and just implement simple, new content, or they should thoroughly and rigorously test these systems (internally!) before releasing it to live. Players spend $15/mo to play this game, and they’re being wrongfully banned for committing something they didn’t know was unintended in the first place, or being left behind/punished for not taking advantage of the exploit. If everyone commits the exploit, it’s not an exploit, but if only a small number of people do it, then they get banned for it. It’s just blatant hypocrisy.
Or… Blizzard could test the game a little longer next go round so people don’t have so many exploits to profit off of!
bring back dislike button
I dont care what the ToS says if something can be done in game its not the players fault…its the developers fault. Ban someone for simply being human and doing what humans instinctively do? Our brains are wired to find the most efficient way to get things done. Why do you think we have tv remotes, vehicles, refrigerators, washing machines…ect ect. If you tell me you wouldnt go kill and loot a bugged npc that was dropping insane ilevel gear I can safely say you are simply lying.
Idk if I would but I do know that I choose to not exploit the crafting bug.
Well why did you agree to it then?