Then the TOS is stupid. It's not hard to grasp.
Then the TOS is stupid. It's not hard to grasp.
There is no pvp at the moment.Imagine if everyone who did the Loot Cave or the Atheon exploit got banned. And that actually gave you a clear advantage in PVP.
For Anthem though? Who TF cares? There's no economy, there's no PVP.
Hell, DE won't even ban you for doing shit like this in Warframe and there's an actual economy in the game. Blizzard doesn't even ban people either in Diablo as far as I'm aware.
So, will you say that it's a negative when he gets unbanned and EA changes their policy? Because the indications are that's exactly what's going to happen.This is a positive outcome. Lol. You guys on here.... you keep claiming things as if there are these rules set in stone. This outcome is positive to me. Goodbye Cheater.
How can it be cheating if it's a thing to do in the game? If BioWare doesn't want it in there they shouldn't have put it in there. That seems like super basic common sense.I wonder if anyone of his defenders will admit he was cheating and they just want him given a pass?
But that's just an opinion from some guy. Whether I agree or not is not important. What's important is what bioware thinks.
If this is your honest opinion then why are you even posting? We all know that's what Bioware thinks - they banned him! What we are discussing here is whether or not we think that's right! Not in a legal TOS sense, but in a moral or business sense. How can you not understand that?But that's just an opinion from some guy. Whether I agree or not is not important. What's important is what bioware thinks.
Actually someone pointed out that there was a Warframe exploit that allowed you to power level lots of items at once and hit max level in minutes, and people were getting permabanned for that. I looked at the patch notes though, and it seems like they only banned the most 'extreme offenders', and the consensus was that you had to have been using an input macro combined with the glitch to level that quickly. Obviously input macros are TOS, which is fair enough.All I have to say is that thank fuck exploiting loopholes didn't get you banned in Destiny coz I used any and every dirty trick in the book when I played it during year 1 and 2. Bioware should probably take a leaf out of Bungie's playbook in this matter. Patch it out instead of alienating the few people who are advertising your unpopular game for free. There's no player economy, just their shitty mtx store which doesn't even have anything worth buying anyway, so this decision is asinine and short-sighted. Even games with player economy, like Warframe don't ban you for using exploits. I remember so many instances where players could have been banned but they weren't coz DE understands that you can't really blame a player for gaming broken systems.
Corporations are always rightBut that's just an opinion from some guy. Whether I agree or not is not important. What's important is what bioware thinks.
But that's just an opinion from some guy. Whether I agree or not is not important. What's important is what bioware thinks.
Yeah I misspoke I should have said coop only or something haha. It was early in the morning for me.Thats still multiplayer though? I think you will find a lot of old school bioware fans wish this was a singleplayer bioware game :P
Actually someone pointed out that there was a Warframe exploit that allowed you to power level lots of items at once and hit max level in minutes, and people were getting permabanned for that. I looked at the patch notes though, and it seems like they only banned the most 'extreme offenders', and the consensus was that you had to have been using an input macro combined with the glitch to level that quickly. Obviously input macros are TOS, which is fair enough.
Yeah I misspoke I should have said coop only or something haha. It was early in the morning for me.
I'm not talking about farming, I'm talking about the legitimate game bug he exploited (spamming Storm Ultimate) to wipe out bosses super fast, a bug that can even cause other things in the game to start messing up, one side effect being the UI getting stuck onscreen. It doesn't matter if there's no economy yet to be affected, it's taking advantage of a glitch to wipe out bosses much more quickly than designed, which can take away some of the fun of other players in your group. And as a streamer, he was showing thousands of other players how to do it.
Design philosophy? Aren't you guys arguing that it should be patched? I also dont think it was designed to be exploited. Well, bioware certainly doesn't believe so.You're missing the point of the discussion; it's not a matter of "Did he break the TOS?" it's "Did he deserve to get banned?" Punting the question with "Well he broke TOS so yes" doesn't actually answer whether or not he deserved it, because the decision to put essentially "You will be banned for grinding too well" in the TOS is the very thing people are objecting to.
Put it another way, do you think the TOS ought to have been changed? And if I may preempt a response, "It's their game they can make their TOS however they want" doesn't really fly, because it goes against the design philosophy of this genre as seen with its contemporaries and actively hurts itself with negative PR. I mean it's not wrong to want things that are arbitrary and have negative consequences to be fixed right?
Probably because they didn't detect you? Most games have terms that say use of any external utility isn't OK, and that's fair enough. Then again, most devs are willing to make a lot of concessions when it comes to utilities that help certain players out and don't harm the experience of other players. For example, using DPS parsers in FFXIV is against TOS, but the devs ignore it as long as you don't harass other players you meet through party finder or matchmaking regarding their DPS.Well, I've used macros before in Warframe and never got banned. Dunno why DE made an exception there.
So, you're willing to deprive other customers of something they paid for just to appease some aesthetic sense of yours? Because what those players are doing has precisely zero impact on you or what you do. That sounds wrong to me - in the moral sense, not according to any TOS.Design philosophy? Aren't you guys arguing that it should be patched? I also dont think it was designed to be exploited. Well, bioware certainly doesn't believe so.
This thread states "efficiently" which is an opinion anyways. So I'm already walking into a biased argument, but so be it.
I dont like cheaters.
I dont like players who exploit.
Thank you bioware.
xGladd didn't affect you or your enjoyment of the game in any way, I'm not sure why you are thanking Bioware for doing this. If anything, all they've done is create more negative press for Anthem which is the last thing it needs.Design philosophy? Aren't you guys arguing that it should be patched? I also dont think it was designed to be exploited. Well, bioware certainly doesn't believe so.
This thread states "efficiently" which is an opinion anyways. So I'm already walking into a biased argument, but so be it.
I dont like cheaters.
I dont like players who exploit.
Thank you bioware.
BioWare thinks you should buy 100 more copies of AnthemBut that's just an opinion from some guy. Whether I agree or not is not important. What's important is what bioware thinks.
Yes "a moral or business sense." So, his actions are against my moral code. In a business sense... bioware has chosen their sacrificial lamb and made it clear that exploiting economy will be punished in the full sense. So I am discussing this correctly. Some posters just cant see how his actions may not offend them, but they clearly offend others.If this is your honest opinion then why are you even posting? We all know that's what Bioware thinks - they banned him! What we are discussing here is whether or not we think that's right! Not in a legal TOS sense, but in a moral or business sense. How can you not understand that?
Actually someone pointed out that there was a Warframe exploit that allowed you to power level lots of items at once and hit max level in minutes, and people were getting permabanned for that. I looked at the patch notes though, and it seems like they only banned the most 'extreme offenders', and the consensus was that you had to have been using an input macro combined with the glitch to level that quickly. Obviously input macros are TOS, which is fair enough.
Design philosophy? Aren't you guys arguing that it should be patched? I also dont think it was designed to be exploited. Well, bioware certainly doesn't believe so.
This thread states "efficiently" which is an opinion anyways. So I'm already walking into a biased argument, but so be it.
I dont like cheaters.
I dont like players who exploit.
Thank you bioware.
Why does it offend you, what are you going to say when the ban is lifted... Cause it is.Yes "a moral or business sense." So, his actions are against my moral code. In a business sense... bioware has chosen their sacrificial lamb and made it clear that exploiting economy will be punished in the full sense. So I am discussing this correctly. Some posters just cant see how his actions may not offend them, but they clearly offend others.
I mean, that's not the argument you've been making thus far, so progress at least. So, lets get down to it: Why is someone else playing the game in a manner you don't approve of but doesn't impact you in any way ban worthy? Why is that against your moral code?Yes "a moral or business sense." So, his actions are against my moral code. In a business sense... bioware has chosen their sacrificial lamb and made it clear that exploiting economy will be punished in the full sense. So I am discussing this correctly. Some posters just cant see how his actions may not offend them, but they clearly offend others.
I have an easier time believing this is astroturfing than someone who is legit upset or offended about something that has 0 impact on others.Yes "a moral or business sense." So, his actions are against my moral code. In a business sense... bioware has chosen their sacrificial lamb and made it clear that exploiting economy will be punished in the full sense. So I am discussing this correctly. Some posters just cant see how his actions may not offend them, but they clearly offend others.
Yes "a moral or business sense." So, his actions are against my moral code. In a business sense... bioware has chosen their sacrificial lamb and made it clear that exploiting economy will be punished in the full sense. So I am discussing this correctly. Some posters just cant see how his actions may not offend them, but they clearly offend others.
Once again it's not my "aesthetic sense". Its bioware's. I just agree with it. Frankly, I dont give a rat's ass, but seeing people make poor arguments is another thing. I dont own the game (thank god I didnt preorder).So, you're willing to deprive other customers of something they paid for just to appease some aesthetic sense of yours? Because what those players are doing has precisely zero impact on you or what you do. That sounds wrong to me - in the moral sense, not according to any TOS.
Also: philosophy in this context means accepting that players will always do the most efficient thing. If there is a method or glitch in your game that's too good, the design philosophy of these games is that you should patch and move on, not ban players for engaging in that manner.
How can you be this disingenuous? I'm asking straight up why you agree with it! I want to understand! My suspicion is that you're just a natural snitch and would probably call the cops if you saw a neighbour smoking weed, but I was honestly wondering if it you had anything deeper than that.Once again it's not my "aesthetic sense". Its bioware's. I just agree with it. Frankly, I dont give a rat's ass, but seeing people make poor arguments is another thing. I dont own the game (thank god I didnt preorder).
Also, this doesn't affect players now, but perhaps could in the future not to mention padding stats.
Meh, I'm just one guy. I'm sure there is a whole army of gamers who want this guy back. Just not me. No biggie. But to say he didnt deserve it? If you want to walk with the big dogs, you gotta learn to piss in the tall grass too.
You reap what you sow.
I'm done here.
Edit: spelling
is there any chance you actually believe this or are you just too deep to back down now? i find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to give up their consumer rights on something that at this point in time, no theoretical future bullshit, does not impact your game. people joke that you're getting paid by ea, my real concern is you're definitely not getting paid by ea and that's scary.Once again it's not my "aesthetic sense". Its bioware's. I just agree with it. Frankly, I dont give a rat's ass, but seeing people make poor arguments is another thing. I dont own the game (thank god I didnt preorder).
Also, this doesn't affect players now, but perhaps could in the future not to mention padding stats.
Meh, I'm just one guy. I'm sure there is a whole army of gamers who want this guy back. Just not me. No biggie. But to say he didnt deserve it? If you want to walk with the big dogs, you gotta learn to piss in the tall grass too.
You reap what you sow.
I'm done here.
Edit: spelling
Let's not start personal attacks, one of the major fallacies out there. That is the sign of a terribly put together argument. If you're not willing to discuss politely then forget it.How can you be this disingenuous? I'm asking straight up why you agree with it! I want to understand! My suspicion is that you're just a natural snitch and would probably call the cops if you saw a neighbour smoking weed, but I was honestly wondering if it you had anything deeper than that.
You're free to peace out, but your entire posting history in this thread has been these kind of dishonest evasions. On the one hand saying it's not your opinion, just Bioware's and only Bioware's opinion matters; then coming up with posts like above where you straight up say you agree with Bioware and refuse to say why, or even comment on the fact that it looks like Bioware's policy might change. In that case, would that Bioware is in the wrong, at least according to your moral code?
Design philosophy? Aren't you guys arguing that it should be patched? I also dont think it was designed to be exploited. Well, bioware certainly doesn't believe so.
This thread states "efficiently" which is an opinion anyways. So I'm already walking into a biased argument, but so be it.
I dont like cheaters.
I dont like players who exploit.
Thank you bioware.
Let's not start personal attacks, one of the major fallacies out there. That is the sign of a terribly put together argument. If you're not willing to discuss politely then forget it.
Once again: I dont like cheaters. I dont like exploiters. This gentleman chose to exploit knowing the consequences. I have no problems with that. However, his argument's are poor. I cant stand that. Own your decisions.
We're going in circles. But I'm not going to continue with personal attacks. You dont know me, dont call me a snitch.
Have a good day, sir.
You kept regurgitating the TOS and said that you didn't care and it was just rules being rules, but then you said later that you're glad "cheaters are banned". You've done nothing but yell "TOS!" and then pretended to have no stake in the argument when you really did, just to avoid everyone else's reasoning at why the TOS is dumb and should be changed.Once again it's not my "aesthetic sense". Its bioware's. I just agree with it. Frankly, I dont give a rat's ass, but seeing people make poor arguments is another thing. I dont own the game (thank god I didnt preorder).
Also, this doesn't affect players now, but perhaps could in the future not to mention padding stats.
Meh, I'm just one guy. I'm sure there is a whole army of gamers who want this guy back. Just not me. No biggie. But to say he didnt deserve it? If you want to walk with the big dogs, you gotta learn to piss in the tall grass too.
You reap what you sow.
I'm done here.
Edit: spelling
I like how you avoided the question again. I'm asking quite specifically: why do you think it's fair to punish someone who is doing no harm to anyone else? The comparison with a neighbour smoking weed isn't a personal attack, it's actually the most obvious real world analogy. There are lots of people who absolutely would do that, and their argument is precisely the one you are making here: the smoker is breaking the rules, therefore they deserve to be punished.Let's not start personal attacks, one of the major fallacies out there. That is the sign of a terribly put together argument. If you're not willing to discuss politely then forget it.
Once again: I dont like cheaters. I dont like exploiters. This gentleman chose to exploit knowing the consequences. I have no problems with that. However, his argument's are poor. I cant stand that. Own your decisions.
We're going in circles. But I'm not going to continue with personal attacks. You dont know me, dont call me a snitch.
Have a good day, sir.
you're willing to give up your right as a consumer because you don't like how someone else plays a game.Let's not start personal attacks, one of the major fallacies out there. That is the sign of a terribly put together argument. If you're not willing to discuss politely then forget it.
Once again: I dont like cheaters. I dont like exploiters. This gentleman chose to exploit knowing the consequences. I have no problems with that. However, his argument's are poor. I cant stand that. Own your decisions.
We're going in circles. But I'm not going to continue with personal attacks. You dont know me, dont call me a snitch.
Have a good day, sir.
Gladd updated on Twitter that it's looking like it's most likely the storm ult glitch he was banned for, which is incredible.I may have missed it, but what's the part of the TOS that he explicitly broke?
Nevermind. Found it. TOS clause he broke.Gladd updated on Twitter that it's looking like it's most likely the storm ult glitch he was banned for, which is incredible.
Well... how does it impact you? I didnt support the game monetarily. Did you?you're willing to give up your right as a consumer because you don't like how someone else plays a game.
it's that simple. it doesn't impact you. it's so blindly selfish.
so i watched the video (not gonna read 700 posts and he talks about running loops in GM1 for chests for a day and then it got nerfed, and that's the main thing he thinks got him banned.
he mentions two other things -- storm ultimate spamming glitch, respawning boss glitch (???).
but from reading comments on reddit people are accusing him of doing a stronghold chest exploit where you can leave after completing a stronghold and rejoin and then you get the chest again like this video
i can understand why you would get banned for this, if this is what he did.
so i watched the video (not gonna read 700 posts) and he talks about running loops in GM1 for chests for a day and then it got nerfed, and that's the main thing he thinks got him banned.
he mentions two other things -- storm ultimate spamming glitch, respawning boss glitch (???).
but from reading comments on reddit people are accusing him of doing a stronghold chest exploit where you can leave after completing a stronghold and rejoin and then you get the chest again like this video
i can understand why you would get banned for this, if this is what he did.