n3rfed

EXPLOITERS R US

Some people I run in circles with (sometimes literally) have been chanting "The days of EQ drama are dead, long-live the days of WoW drama.". And when Blizzard obligingly steps up to the plate to suspend players for using the tools at their disposal, it becomes pretty hard to disagree.

As any half decent he-said-she-said story goes, you've got to start somewhere in the dirty middle. That middle would be Fangtooth, one member of the newly formed WoW weekend crack squad, posting a message - sticky no less - that he knows you've been bad, so you better damn well stop what you're doing.

Recently, the Game Master staff found certain players repeatedly exploiting specific high-end content in Molten Core. The raid participants continued this exploitation after being asked to stop. At this time, we are issuing suspensions to all accounts involved.

We encourage players to actively explore and defeat these encounters, but we ask that it is done in a manner intended by the design of the game. Using exploits is not something we tolerate. When possible, we will educate players on what is and is not intended by game design. If this education goes unheeded, action can and will be taken against those involved.

Due to the out-of-the-blue nature of this message, many WTF posts followed. Because, you know, it's not a proper thread if you don't have at least six WTFs on the first two pages.

Maleki, WoW in-game Support Manager, and as far as I can remember, notorious for GM love and crimes against the English language such as this, offered some official clarification:

To be a little more specific, the guild in question was using repeated line of sight exploits which prevented the mobs from attacking back. Also, using a pulling exploit which allowed them to only agro boss mobs. Both are considered exploits, and the guild in question was previously warned the night before. We want to reiterate that exploitation of high end content will not be tolerated.

This official clarification left a sour taste in the mouths of the officially sanctioned steenkin' exploiting guild and those who love them. Flipside of the coin stories were offered, including one by an apparently in-the-know level 10 Gnome (assumed to be an alt of a suspended character) who offered an example of the Hunter pull method used in relation to the first warning, and described the Warlock/Rogue pull used in relation to the suspension:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-hunter&t=83007&p=1&tmp=1#post83007
This is what oyu guys are wanting to know.

The guild in question was warned not to do it. They did NOT ever repeate it after the warning. They did not use line of sight exploits ever.

The guild pulled by having a warlock summon a rogue who tagged a mob. The mob then ran to the raid group and the guild killed him with his guards present and offtanked as the encoutner was intended.

So, No pulling using warlock summons.  No pulling using hunter snare traps followed by feigning.

Should save some of you guys some trouble inthe future.

It would seem this level 10 Gnome was in fact in the know, for as sure as cries of "Nerf!" follow one-on-one fights, our good friend Maleki was quick to reply:

Ok, so basically your saying the guild in question must be warned for every variation of the exploit? Last night, the GM let you all off with a simple warning. Less than 24 hours later, you proceed back to do the same thing.

Actually, yes Maleki. You are correct. Congratulations, you may take part in the Lightning Round. For you see, apart from the fact that the two pulling methods used are more than just variations of the broad term "pulling-in-a-dungeon-the-way-it-wasn't-intended exploit" - they are quite distinctive from one another - , if you don't warn players of what an exploit is then, surprise surprise, players won't know what combination of tactics or abilities actually is an exploit.

You see Maleki, as I hoped you would have learned in the example of your UO days above, and to put it bluntly for ease of use, you've got to be very specific when dealing with players. To warn players for using one unintended pulling method and then suspending them for another loosely-related unintended pulling method just doesn't cut it.

To borrow some well-put words from the thread in question;

Here's a crash course in game design (and how I wish more 'new school' developers were 'old school' mud builders).

You absolutely, positively CANNOT expect the player to adhere your vision of an encounter. Whatever your intentions may be for content, the players can and will be creative and find new and interesting ways to make it easier, or flat out circumvent it.

The solution to this problem is simple. Warn folks of said issue, and be specific. You cannot make overbroad blanket proclamations and later use it to apply to a given incident (FCC anyone?). After warning is given, close the hole, or god forbid, repair said content.

It's not up to the player to adhere to the 'spirit of the encounter'. You gave them the tools to raid with, if you don't want them using it, restrict these abilities/tactics so there is no choice. Attempting to discover your intention for an encounter is not their responsibility. It's yours. As is educating you Customer Service staff in regards to policy in these cases. It really scares me that CS is this uninformed about the content they're supposed to be monitoring. I'm not sure I even want them helping me with any issues I may have.

To close, this isn't as open and shut as say...speedhacking, or maphopping (tho that's debatable). You're placing way too much responsibility on the PLAYER, and not nearly enough on your unfinished, poorly conceived, untested content.

So you can either continue to the blame the players for broken content, or the testers and developers who allowed to enter a live state in the first place. See which one has the resources to actually SOLVE the problem, and you'll have your culprit here.

-Taliesn/Elessar

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm heading off to stand hesitantly in front of some monsters, club halted in mid-air, and debate to myself whether I'm going to get my arse banned because I pulled them the wrong way.

WHO OF WHATSITNOW?

Judging by the hundreds of emails from game websites that filled my inbox this morning and exclaimed that "FACE OF MANKIND ENTERS OPEN BETA! GIVEAWAY! PRIZES! VIAGRA!", I guess it's safe to say that Face of Mankind has entered open beta. Or something.

While I have never heard of the game before, and besides the fact it looks very similar to another German MMO, I wish it luck. Especially in light of the "success" of recent non-$50-squillion-advertising-budget MMOs.

Still, there's something "things that make you go hmmm" about a game website that, when you sign up as a member, says;

            Thank you for your confidence !

NEWSFLASH! SHOCKING!

According to Wired, sex is still very much a part of gaming and the Internet.

Tune in tomorrow for when we discover pixels make games look pretty.

MY INTERNET CONNECTION WENT DOWN FOR THE WEEKEND AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY LATE WOW UPDATE

As mentioned earlier, this weekend saw the cumulation of many naked afroless trolls who gathered together to enjoy a tea party, Ironforge style.

SpikeTV-nominated "Best live news coverage in a wartorn MMORPG zone, brought to you by Mountain Dew for when you have a protest-crushing thirst" updates can be found here, and here.

Depsite comments from the Community Team stating that they indeed do listen to player feedback on the boards, and no such protest is needed...

Please understand that we value your feedback and we know how upset the Warrior community is at this time. There are ways to express your opinion on this. Post on the forums -- we do read the class forums, we know you're not satisfied, and we appreciate your well-written posts.

The protest is not a constructive way to get your point across. It causes lag for many customers and can ruin their gameplay experience. This is why we cannot allow such a thing to continue. If you use constructive means of communicating with us, trust me... we'll listen.

...once the fun and jollyment of suspension-giving was done with, the drawbridge of Castle Blizzard was opened and someone was pushed out to dispense with the Warrior heart-mending.

It remains to be seen how this pill will be swallowed, especially considering some don't like the taste, but more importantly, as J puts it;

If the easiest way to get the attention of CSR's and/or CM's is to do or say things that are totally stupid, the relationship is broken.

Meanwhile, in a country that is the Internet, World of Warcraft was beaten. Game over, man.

I think there's at least one Warrior there...

I FEEL SO USED

N3rfed's top Google referrals for today.

wow xp bug
Lineage 2 nude screenshots
WoW perma-double xp
dragons of norrath
nude patch
wow double xp hack
games with boobs
double experience exploit warcraft
hacking wow xp
just boobs

Yes, "just boobs". Because "boobs" as a search term apparently returns too much genitalia for someone to handle. Go figure.

Excuse me while I wash out my site's mouth with soap and wonder if I am the only one not searching for how to hack WoW on the Internet today.

I WANNA BE LEETZOR

Courtesy of AFKGamer comes some unhappy customers.

Courtesy of Ubiq comes an example of why you really don't want unhappy customers. Or alternatively, ones with too much free time on their hands.

I HEART THE INTERNET

If you are late in joining us here on the IntraWeb and missed it everywhere else;

Be confused. And happy.

Be confused. And oddly uncomfortable with mild scared overtones.

PERSONALLY, I'M WAITING FOR THE EVERQUEST CREDIT CARD

As discussed elsewhere, the Economist has a new article which attempts to compare real and virtual world economies. And because I'm a sucker for a strong economy - your economy - here is the article for free;

Subject: Economics and gaming

A model economy
Jan 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition


Should links between real and virtual economies be encouraged or banned?

FOR players of online role-playing games such as “EverQuest” and “World of Warcraft”, battling monsters and amassing treasure is an enjoyable form of escapism. Yet the real and virtual worlds are increasingly intertwined. For many years, game items such as swords or gold have been traded online: virtual objects are sold for real money to the tune of at least $100m a year. But the links between real and virtual economies are now becoming far more elaborate.

Last month, a “Project Entropia” player paid the game's creators $26,500 for an island in the game's virtual world. (He hopes to recoup the money through mining and selling plots to other players.) This month, an “Ultima Online” player set up a scheme to let players donate items and currency to raise money for tsunami relief. Currency exchanges even allow gamers to move funds from one game to another.

Not everyone approves: some games ban the sale of game items, a few encourage it, but most turn a blind eye. But the sale of the “Project Entropia” island, and the popularity of “World of Warcraft”, a game launched in November which bans the sale of in-game items, highlight an emerging split, says Edward Castronova, an expert on virtual economies at Indiana University. “Project Entropia” and its sort are intended to be realistic alternative realities, often with a strong libertarian and free-trade bent. “World of Warcraft” and other similar games, in contrast, are fantasies with a strong sense of fair play in which status must be earned as part of a rags-to-riches storyline—so trade in game items is deemed to be against the rules.

Such bans are impossible to enforce. But “World of Warcraft” is designed to make trading less appealing, in two ways. The first is by improving the game design. If the early stages of a game are tedious, players are more inclined to skip them by buying rather than earning in-game items. “World of Warcraft” is fun right from the start, which seems to have reduced demand for in-game items on eBay. Trading can also be a symptom of mismanagement of the in-game economy. Inflation is rampant in most games, due to the convention that killing a monster yields a monetary reward: rising prices then fuel real-world trading. But newer games have more control over the money supply, which seems to reduce such trading.

A-hem.

Normally, this newspaper's devotion to free trade is unwavering. Yet curbing the trade of in-game items is defensible, since game economies are run to maximise fun, not efficiency. While writing his forthcoming book, “Synthetic Worlds”, Mr Castronova has been pondering whether real economies could be run for fun too. “Wouldn't that tip the economics texts on their heads?” he muses.

If fun doesn't already play a large part in the economies of today - heck, futures markets have been created just so people can have fun betting on who wins an election -, slap my butt and call me Greenspan.

YOU MEAN NOT EVERYONE HAS 10 HOURS TO SPARE FOR A DRAGON RAID?

In what seems to be a new tradition of producers/company presidents writing to players to show that hey, they're people too so will you please stop annoying the Customer Service and Community Teams so they can get some rest and stop twitching, the EQII Senior Producer, Scott Hartsman, has a thing or two to say.

Of note, amongst the hyping up of the Adventure Packs and cosmetic add-ons, somewhere along the line someone, and a smart someone at that, found out that now and then people like to take the two M's out of MMORPG and instead play solo. Because, you know, not everyone can squeeze in finding a group, waiting 2 hours until the Priest has sold his/her loot and picked up new spells, a further 30 minutes for the Warrior to collect his spirit shard because he died coming from the next zone over, and travelling 20 minutes to a dungeon only to die in 10 seconds when you've got a mere 1 hour to spend between coming home from work and sitting down to the family dinner.

Since launch, we've added dozens of new quests and hundreds of new NPCs all over the game world, specifically for soloists and small groups. Expect the steady stream of additions like this to continue over the coming weeks and months. Whether you have a half hour by yourself or all night in a group, we want to make sure that EverQuest II has something fun for every style of player.

In tomorrow's update, expect significant solo and small group experience boosts across the board that allow for advancement that will be much more visible and feel much more satisfying.

In the following weeks' updates, there will be a new class of creatures added to the game that present an increased challenge to soloers and small groups. Specific details will be posted in the message that accompanies the update. Soloing shouldn't feel like a grind; it should be an exciting and fun style of play in its own right.

Also in those updates, brand new item rewards will be added for soloists and small-groupers. Additionally, some of the rewards that have been reserved solely for groups will also make their way, though more rarely, to the solo and small group encounters in the world. At the same time, expect group rewards to improve as well. The chances for some of the group-only ultra-rare drops will likewise be increased.

In the weeks following that, expect new dungeon instances to be made available for those who solo, duo, and trio. Exciting dungeon crawling is a core part of what people love the most about online fantasy games, and it shouldn't be reserved solely for those who choose to play in full groups.

Essentially, the way it should work is like this:

Soloing and small grouping should be a way to advance at a satisfying rate. You should be able to earn good rewards that are exciting in their own right. Soloing and small grouping should also provide a chance at the great rewards that people might not expect in anything except the traditional six-person group.

Grouping will still provide the fastest overall experience gain, but the advantage won't be as drastic as it is today. Grouping will also provide better chances at the spectacular ultra-rare rewards. This isn't a knee jerk reaction: After our designers measured what's been going on in the world, it is far from over-stuffed with ultra-rare rewards. There are actually fewer out there than we'd have expected, so making them appear somewhat more frequently than they currently are is just the right thing to do.

This constitutes as quite a departure from the origianal hallowed design decision of "group or die".

SOE...the Vision...changed...

Hold me.

SAY WHAT?

GamersInfo has released an interview with some of the Dark Age of Camelot crew involving server clustering, expansions, the new pricing system and why-is-my-Ranger-so-gimp?

Larian:  What about the classic classes and lands?  With each expansion, they seem less attractive and antiquated.

Matt Firor: Well, with each expansion, the "new" stuff needs to offer something to the player that they can't really get from what is already out there. It's a fact of life you have to deal with if you want to actually sell something. The Team Leads are doing a good job in making sure that overall realm balance is maintained, but we are not planning to do anything monumental to change these classes.

The interview becomes really interesting when you consider, according to someone else who was there, these responses aren't what were actually said.

Matt Firor, for example, did not actually say what is quoted at all.

Meanwhile, and from some text which you can probably take as actually coming from a Mythic employee, the first test of server clustering has hit the Pendragon test server. World to implode when your character from one server meets a same-named character from another server.

And in closing, competition is a wonderful invention. Mr Moneybags Monopoly never had it this good.