cyber week & "gifting/trading" week

2»

Comments

  • SearmenisSearmenis Member Posts: 1,636 ★★★★★

    so is there any possible way that we can get some type of info on how the rest of the year is ganna play out??
    cause i mean if gifting event is botched up/ reduced/ or simply doesnt meet standards due to the "exploit" of unit farming with new accounts(even tho that how the game is intended to be right, play and get rewarded?), people can simply invest in cyber week instead.

    its safe to say there is a poop storm brewing and the community is ganna take the brunt of it as usual. there is ganna be more bugs, more game breaking events and such. we already have to deal with that... just hope these upcoming deals arent also ruined....

    So, you want to know what 2022 bugs to expect beforehand?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,697 Guardian
    Irumili said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    @DNA3000 " but an exploit, in the context of online games, is when someone takes advantage of an unintended opportunity to gain an unacceptable advantage. You need two things for conduct to be considered an exploit as the term is normally used. You need an unintended opportunity, and you need an unacceptable advantage."

    1st problem is, Kabam did not specify how are you supposed to use the units. Yes, common sense says units from act123 are intended to help new players and not feed into main accounts, but again, kabam did not expressively say that in their TOS.

    2nd problem is, assuming everyone grinds alts legit not using bots or mercs, everyone has the same oportunity to grind as my alts as they want to, no restrictions, if you dont take the oportunity for various reasons, then you cannot blame people,who are more dedicated and willing to put in the work, for gaining an unacceptable advantage

    Neither of these things matter. Firstly, game operators have no requirement to explicitly state every intent of every game change. That would be an unrealistic burden. Secondly, this doesn't make logical sense when discussing unintended possibilities. Many unintended possibilities fall into the category of unanticipated situations, which cannot be explicitly listed ahead of time.

    But most importantly, talking about "blame" is completely missing the point. An exploit is conduct unacceptable to the operation of the game that must be curtailed. Asking who's fault it is is completely immaterial. If it is the players fault, it has to be curtailed. If it is the developers fault it has to be curtailed. The idea that if the developer is "at fault" then the players get to do whatever they want abrogates the developers responsibility to the game. If I'm a game developer and I make a mistake and as a result of that mistake an unacceptable amount of rewards flow into the game, then I will change the game to stop that flow and if the amount is high enough then I will reverse those rewards out of the game, because that's my job. The fact that the players "blame me" for the problem is perfectly fine, because as the developer it ultimately is my fault. It changes nothing about what my job requires me to do.

    At no time would I ever say, oh well, it is my fault, so I guess the players get to keep everything. That's ludicrous. If I was a game developer and I had that attitude, I wouldn't be one for very long.
    in general yes, you might be right, but when they changed act123, they surely must've anticipated this. you yourself dont believe noone thought of this possibility, yet they allowed it. and as they have real data from past years gifting events, they probably concluded it would not make such an impact. so BG's concerns and everyone else talking about breaking game economy are just speculating and talking in hypothetical extreme scenarios.
    They thought about it, allowed it anyway, then reconsidered the consequences. That's basically one of the three ways exploits enter any game. Either they didn't consider it at all, they did consider it but failed to realize the full impact, or they considered the impact but underestimated it.

    Exploits are rarely associated with unintended actions. They are associated with unintended side effects.

    Also, it is possible that they did consider this and were working on mitigation, but was going to remain silent on that mitigation until we were near the gifting event but Brian's video compelled them to respond.
    No normal human being can do Brian Grant's calculations. Ask yourself would you do it? Absofkinlutely you can try for maybe 5 accounts tops. BG did not consider the 6 hrs itself is small but everyday for 45 days? also he did it easily coz of the rank up gems that will not be available for so long. And if you just play the alt accounts your main account would lose a lot of value during that time as well So.. yep the 200k unit exploit is a huge crazy talk.
    The number is an extreme case, but it is not an impossible case. Whether someone would be willing to do that or not is neither here nor there: it is within the realm of possibility, so it has to be taken seriously. Also, it is just as much of an issue if it ends up being 150k units or 99k units. There's nothing magical about 200k, it is just a number to highlight the issue.

    I wouldn't do it because it I wanted 200,000 units in six weeks I would just buy them. But if you think no one would put in this level of effort, I have to tell you I come from the land of turn of the century MMOs. The effort Brian is describing wouldn't be considered especially super human to old school MMO players. I've spent more effort to do crazier things for no rewards at all.

    Also, I'll throw this out there. I'm not going to push for a gigantic windfall in 2021. But I have set myself the goal of trying to fill an alliance with these alts by the end of 2022, without compromising normal arena grinding and without hurting my main's progress. I have a specific strategy for doing that which doesn't force me to play more than I want to or push harder than I want to, and I don't even care if I ever use the units. With so many people talking about how impossible or impractical this sort of thing is unless you break the TOS or drive yourself crazy, it would be worth doing just to prove them all wrong.
  • daveyj_196_daveyj_196_ Member Posts: 439
    Please don't call it an exploit, it isn't. I won't be making alt accounts but I certainly don't begrudge anyone who does this legitimately.
  • This content has been removed.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,697 Guardian
    Irumili said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Irumili said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    @DNA3000 " but an exploit, in the context of online games, is when someone takes advantage of an unintended opportunity to gain an unacceptable advantage. You need two things for conduct to be considered an exploit as the term is normally used. You need an unintended opportunity, and you need an unacceptable advantage."

    1st problem is, Kabam did not specify how are you supposed to use the units. Yes, common sense says units from act123 are intended to help new players and not feed into main accounts, but again, kabam did not expressively say that in their TOS.

    2nd problem is, assuming everyone grinds alts legit not using bots or mercs, everyone has the same oportunity to grind as my alts as they want to, no restrictions, if you dont take the oportunity for various reasons, then you cannot blame people,who are more dedicated and willing to put in the work, for gaining an unacceptable advantage

    Neither of these things matter. Firstly, game operators have no requirement to explicitly state every intent of every game change. That would be an unrealistic burden. Secondly, this doesn't make logical sense when discussing unintended possibilities. Many unintended possibilities fall into the category of unanticipated situations, which cannot be explicitly listed ahead of time.

    But most importantly, talking about "blame" is completely missing the point. An exploit is conduct unacceptable to the operation of the game that must be curtailed. Asking who's fault it is is completely immaterial. If it is the players fault, it has to be curtailed. If it is the developers fault it has to be curtailed. The idea that if the developer is "at fault" then the players get to do whatever they want abrogates the developers responsibility to the game. If I'm a game developer and I make a mistake and as a result of that mistake an unacceptable amount of rewards flow into the game, then I will change the game to stop that flow and if the amount is high enough then I will reverse those rewards out of the game, because that's my job. The fact that the players "blame me" for the problem is perfectly fine, because as the developer it ultimately is my fault. It changes nothing about what my job requires me to do.

    At no time would I ever say, oh well, it is my fault, so I guess the players get to keep everything. That's ludicrous. If I was a game developer and I had that attitude, I wouldn't be one for very long.
    in general yes, you might be right, but when they changed act123, they surely must've anticipated this. you yourself dont believe noone thought of this possibility, yet they allowed it. and as they have real data from past years gifting events, they probably concluded it would not make such an impact. so BG's concerns and everyone else talking about breaking game economy are just speculating and talking in hypothetical extreme scenarios.
    They thought about it, allowed it anyway, then reconsidered the consequences. That's basically one of the three ways exploits enter any game. Either they didn't consider it at all, they did consider it but failed to realize the full impact, or they considered the impact but underestimated it.

    Exploits are rarely associated with unintended actions. They are associated with unintended side effects.

    Also, it is possible that they did consider this and were working on mitigation, but was going to remain silent on that mitigation until we were near the gifting event but Brian's video compelled them to respond.
    No normal human being can do Brian Grant's calculations. Ask yourself would you do it? Absofkinlutely you can try for maybe 5 accounts tops. BG did not consider the 6 hrs itself is small but everyday for 45 days? also he did it easily coz of the rank up gems that will not be available for so long. And if you just play the alt accounts your main account would lose a lot of value during that time as well So.. yep the 200k unit exploit is a huge crazy talk.
    The number is an extreme case, but it is not an impossible case. Whether someone would be willing to do that or not is neither here nor there: it is within the realm of possibility, so it has to be taken seriously. Also, it is just as much of an issue if it ends up being 150k units or 99k units. There's nothing magical about 200k, it is just a number to highlight the issue.

    I wouldn't do it because it I wanted 200,000 units in six weeks I would just buy them. But if you think no one would put in this level of effort, I have to tell you I come from the land of turn of the century MMOs. The effort Brian is describing wouldn't be considered especially super human to old school MMO players. I've spent more effort to do crazier things for no rewards at all.

    Also, I'll throw this out there. I'm not going to push for a gigantic windfall in 2021. But I have set myself the goal of trying to fill an alliance with these alts by the end of 2022, without compromising normal arena grinding and without hurting my main's progress. I have a specific strategy for doing that which doesn't force me to play more than I want to or push harder than I want to, and I don't even care if I ever use the units. With so many people talking about how impossible or impractical this sort of thing is unless you break the TOS or drive yourself crazy, it would be worth doing just to prove them all wrong.
    There isn't six weeks on the rank up gems in objectives tho. And I did play old school MMORPGs last one I played was iruna. I farmed items for months on 10accounts. But I got older and the time that I can play diminished. That's my point. It is possible but the probability of anyone normal person doing this is unlikely. The only one that benefits from gifting are arena botted accounts anyway. Even with all the restrictions kabam puts year after year. Them straight up cheaters still have unit loaded accounts from arena botting.so yeah i just hope my 2 alts could still send me my gifts lol
    Tell me the last time someone said “no player would do this” and turned out to be right. Or to make it easier, name *any* time they were right.

    If your point is no *normal* players would do that, the problem here is no normal person would debate the resource earning limits of a progressional game on the internet either. We’re already outside the realm of normal people just by being here.
  • Longshot_33Longshot_33 Member Posts: 374 ★★★
    I would be happy with just confirmation that gifting is even returning at all. Even that is in doubt atm. People are assuming it is when it might not even return as an event at all
Sign In or Register to comment.