Comments on: Exploit or creative use of game mechanics?

By: Tigerfeet

Tigerfeet — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:23:37 +0000

I was typing a comment to this, then it got out of hand. Your thoughts remind me of the story of the Panzerkin and of stifled creativity.

I’ll blog about this soon

By: Light

Light — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:42:42 +0000

There’s a difference between using heroism and being overgeared and glitching a boss to the point where it just instantly dies.

By: Orgauth

Orgauth — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:59:57 +0000

If you use the absurdly-subjective “Anything that trivializes the game encounter” definition of an exploit: Tanking XT on the sides IS an exploit. It removes half the add spawn points, and minimizes the coverage area for add management.

By: Orgauth

Orgauth — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:56:17 +0000

That is exactly what EVERYguild is trying to do in EVERY raid instance – trivialize EVERY encounter just enough to beat it.

By: Elleiras

Elleiras — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:54:01 +0000

Like stacking shaman for bloodlust? Or druids for rebirth?

I understand what you’re saying, but I still think the onus is on Blizzard. If someone actually hacks the game, then they deserve to get banned — but if they use existing (and accepted!) game mechanics, then they haven’t broken any rules and shouldn’t be penalized as if they had.

Here’s an ambiguous one. If you tank XT on the stairs, you’ll get adds from all four scrap piles. If you tank him on one side of the room or the other, you’ll only get adds from the two farthest piles.

So is tanking XT on the side of the room an exploit? Or is it just smart?

By: Light

Light — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:05:54 +0000

It is hard for people in a game to really know what an “exploit” is, but I think in the eyes of Blizzard the exploits that they punished are akin to hacking into a system and gaining root access.

Perhaps they need to define what they mean by exploit… “Anything that trivializes the game encounter”?

By: Elleiras

Elleiras — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:46:37 +0000

At the risk of sounding like a certain ex-President, it rather depends on how you define “exploit.” Did the players who four-manned Flame Leviathan a few weeks ago “exploit” the encounter? Or did they come up with an innovative strategy, using existing game mechanics in new and creative ways?

What about Exodus? Was using a soul-stoned paladin and a DI’d warlock to pull healing aggro from inside the brain room (and evade-glitch the Guardians of Yogg-Saron) “cheating”? Or was it brilliant?

Personally, I’m inclined to say the latter. Blizzard obviously doesn’t agree.

The murder-jail analogy doesn’t quite hold up, because “free will” doesn’t exist in the World of Warcraft. If Blizzard doesn’t want us to commit murder, it can simply program the game in such a way that murder is impossible.

By: Light

Light — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:23:05 +0000

Interesting read, but I think that not punishing exploits doesn’t work for a multiplayer game.

If I can do things that make it so I can get boatloads of money, gear, or materials with no effort it unbalances gameplay for the millions of other players.

The retroactive punishment is kind of like jailing people after a murder. Too late, the person is already dead, but it has to be done to deter others from doing the same thing.

By: Middea

Middea — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:14:36 +0000

Very good read, thanks for sharing!