blue exploit

geonsocal

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

While finding the perfect spot to place a camp on a keep isn't an exploit, this is not intended. We will have a fix for this in the coming PTS cycle which means it will be fixed in Update 17. By "Fixed" we mean you can't do this anymore after that patch goes live.

personally, I'd vote to leave it - after a couple of years - cyrodiil can get awfully repetitive...this don't seem like to bad a glitch...

actually - what would be cool if the two faction home keeps by the starter areas allowed for forward camp placement by the home faction...

just make it so that scrolls can't be stored there...would make gating a faction much harder...

gating = bad

any chance you all will be taking another shot of implementing the performance update to eliminate lag?

without the no rez/port feature in cyrodiil thing included...

Reverb

whyteVyper wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

This is why it's almost impossible to take accusations of cheating and exploiting from the community seriously. Rather than simply stating that it seems odd, or asking if it's intended, OP jumps right to "exploiter!!!". Zeni brought this on themselves by turning a blind eye to widely known and reported exploits and CE use for so long, but I'm sick of the lynch mob mentality.

Ummm... but the very FIRST thing OP did was ask if it was intended though...? And then a Dev chimed in saying it is an exploit because it is not intended... Sounds like someone is trying to justify some actions.... guilty conscience?

No, the first thing he said was "Blue exploit",check the thread title. The second thing he did was to ask if it was intended, but he closed that question with the statement that it's always done by a "blue exploiter". You are contributing to the lynch mob mentality by claiming that I have a guilty conscience because I object to people hurling accusations and assuming ill-intent instead of just asking questions.

VaranisArano

Guys, relax.

Its not an exploit in the sense of gaining an advantage over other players - we demonstrated that it can be done in DC and EP tri-keeps, so nobody has an advantage here.

Its not an exploit in the sense of "guys, its really obvious that ZOS didn't intend for you to snipe the trial boss to death without him attacking you" - you can place FCs there in multiple keeps and on the keep towers so its not exactly a stretch to place one of the wide open space of an upper level.

Nor is it an exploit in the sense of this is something ZOS told us not to do - whereas gap closing into keeps to bypass the walls/doors is something ZOS has specifically called an exploit and banned people for doing so.

Its simply something that can be done in game on multiple keeps that ZOS, upon seeing it, went "Huh, we didn't want that to be able to happen" and is going to patch it.

So the OP did us a favor in pointing out something odd in Cyrodiil, the devs have looked at it and made their decision. I'm not sure I'd rush out and throw forward camps up on the inner ledges of the tri-keeps now that I know its not intended gameplay, but there's nothing nefarious going on.

xeNNNNN

jcaceresw wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

While finding the perfect spot to place a camp on a keep isn't an exploit, this is not intended. We will have a fix for this in the coming PTS cycle which means it will be fixed in Update 17. By "Fixed" we mean you can't do this anymore after that patch goes live.

Glad to know. May I suggest to fix not just that spot and try to find other potential spots?

This please. If you're going to fix one, then fix them all.

DoctorESO

.

psypanda

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

While finding the perfect spot to place a camp on a keep isn't an exploit, this is not intended. We will have a fix for this in the coming PTS cycle which means it will be fixed in Update 17. By "Fixed" we mean you can't do this anymore after that patch goes live.

I wonder how many other bugs this little "fix" will cause..

TequilaFire

DoctorESO wrote: »

Are they going to be banned like the vAS HM cheaters they are?

edit - Deleted not worth it.

mouton

DoctorESO wrote: »

Are they going to be banned like the vAS HM cheaters they are?

Wow, you can place camps on vAS too ? Nice to know.

Zaldan

TequilaFire wrote: »

whyteVyper wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

This is why it's almost impossible to take accusations of cheating and exploiting from the community seriously. Rather than simply stating that it seems odd, or asking if it's intended, OP jumps right to "exploiter!!!". Zeni brought this on themselves by turning a blind eye to widely known and reported exploits and CE use for so long, but I'm sick of the lynch mob mentality.

Ummm... but the very FIRST thing OP did was ask if it was intended though...? And then a Dev chimed in saying it is an exploit because it is not intended... Sounds like someone is trying to justify some actions.... guilty conscience?

Umm, read again Brian said it was not an exploit but not intended.
It is a perfect spot would you not agree?

which leads me to wonder what is an exploit if it isn't taking advantage of something that isn't intended? thought that was the definition of exploit

TequilaFire

Zaldan wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

whyteVyper wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

This is why it's almost impossible to take accusations of cheating and exploiting from the community seriously. Rather than simply stating that it seems odd, or asking if it's intended, OP jumps right to "exploiter!!!". Zeni brought this on themselves by turning a blind eye to widely known and reported exploits and CE use for so long, but I'm sick of the lynch mob mentality.

Ummm... but the very FIRST thing OP did was ask if it was intended though...? And then a Dev chimed in saying it is an exploit because it is not intended... Sounds like someone is trying to justify some actions.... guilty conscience?

Umm, read again Brian said it was not an exploit but not intended.
It is a perfect spot would you not agree?

which leads me to wonder what is an exploit if it isn't taking advantage of something that isn't intended? thought that was the definition of exploit

Well, a forward camp usually can be used anywhere in Cyrodiil it can be set up.
Also since all alliances can do it it is not an advantage.
Also simply flipping the flags removes all forward camps and the camps have a 5 min timer before you can use them again so endless zerg claims are bogus.

And bottom line is there were no forward camps here signs posted.
Taking advantage of and cheating are two different things.
People are such witch hunters behind a screen.

VaranisArano

Zaldan wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

whyteVyper wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

This is why it's almost impossible to take accusations of cheating and exploiting from the community seriously. Rather than simply stating that it seems odd, or asking if it's intended, OP jumps right to "exploiter!!!". Zeni brought this on themselves by turning a blind eye to widely known and reported exploits and CE use for so long, but I'm sick of the lynch mob mentality.

Ummm... but the very FIRST thing OP did was ask if it was intended though...? And then a Dev chimed in saying it is an exploit because it is not intended... Sounds like someone is trying to justify some actions.... guilty conscience?

Umm, read again Brian said it was not an exploit but not intended.
It is a perfect spot would you not agree?

which leads me to wonder what is an exploit if it isn't taking advantage of something that isn't intended? thought that was the definition of exploit

That is the definition of an exploit. Except its hard to see where this is taking advantage of it when it can be done on multiple keeps of different faction and any faction that owned that keep could place a camp there. If EP or AD took Rayles (I think that's Rayles in the picture with the water moat) they could have place a camp there just the same as DC if they knew about the spot. Same for the EP tri-keeps where a camp can be placed, so its not like this is unique to DC trip-keeps.

So its not intended, yeah, but the benefit is available to any player who knew about it, so nobody actually has an advantage over any other player - its just not intended in the game, which leads me to point 2...

Its not obvious that this isn't intended. Now that we know, I don't advise people to go do it. But the general rule of thumb is that if there's enough space to put a Forwards Camp and there is enough space on the wall towers, that you put a forward camp there. Especially with there being space on the wall towers, putting a camp on the wide open space of a inner tri-keep's upper story isn't a stretch.

The game sees there's enough space + far enough away from the building, the game lets you drop a forward camp - on wall towers, on the ground inside a keep, right outside the keep's front door, and so on. This isn't like the vAS HM glitch, where its obvious the game is not working as intended. This isn't even like gap-closing into keeps, where ZOS had clearly said beforehand that this isn't intended and is a bannable exploit.

So why isn't this an exploit? Its an oddity that wasn't intended, but that can be used by players of all factions equally that doesn't bypass any intended mechanics or rules in Cyrodiil with forward camp placement - except that ZOS didn't actually mean for camps to go on the upper levels but didn't check the size/placement on those upper lips on the tri-keeps. So everything is working properly as designed and according to the internal rules and logic of Cyrodiil, ZOS just needs to tweak the forward camp programming again.

Apache_Kid

DoctorESO wrote: »

Are they going to be banned like the vAS HM cheaters they are?

Please tell me this was sarcasm.

Aisle9

Apache_Kid wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

Are they going to be banned like the vAS HM cheaters they are?

Please tell me this was sarcasm.

It probably isn't, but you can safely ignore it.

Brian Wheeler said, and I quote "We didn't intend it, but it's not an exploit", then someone comes out screaming "Haxx0r! Ban!" anyways.

Happens all the time, you can't beat them, just pity them.

Apache_Kid

I just can't even @Aisle9

VaranisArano

TequilaFire wrote: »

People are such witch hunters behind a screen.

The screen protects them from being turned into a newt.

DoctorESO

.

Apache_Kid

DoctorESO wrote: »

Apache_Kid wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

Are they going to be banned like the vAS HM cheaters they are?

Please tell me this was sarcasm.

Yes. I guess it's a touchy subject, since others didn't find the humor or sarcasm in it.

You can never tell on here

DoctorESO

.

Ackwalan

An exploit is, taking advantage of an unintended game mechanic. Placing a camp in that spot is unintended, placing a camp there is an exploit. ZOS isn't going to call this an exploit in an attempt to keep the forum lawyers calm. If placing a camp in that spot had more of an impact on whether the keep could be held/flipped, ZOS would take (maybe) a more aggressive stance on this. Relax folks, calling for bans is childish, it's being fix.

Aeladiir

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

While finding the perfect spot to place a camp on a keep isn't an exploit, this is not intended. We will have a fix for this in the coming PTS cycle which means it will be fixed in Update 17. By "Fixed" we mean you can't do this anymore after that patch goes live.

Is anything being done to fix the lag in PvP?

xeNNNNN

TequilaFire wrote: »

Zaldan wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

whyteVyper wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

This is why it's almost impossible to take accusations of cheating and exploiting from the community seriously. Rather than simply stating that it seems odd, or asking if it's intended, OP jumps right to "exploiter!!!". Zeni brought this on themselves by turning a blind eye to widely known and reported exploits and CE use for so long, but I'm sick of the lynch mob mentality.

Ummm... but the very FIRST thing OP did was ask if it was intended though...? And then a Dev chimed in saying it is an exploit because it is not intended... Sounds like someone is trying to justify some actions.... guilty conscience?

Umm, read again Brian said it was not an exploit but not intended.
It is a perfect spot would you not agree?

which leads me to wonder what is an exploit if it isn't taking advantage of something that isn't intended? thought that was the definition of exploit

Well, a forward camp usually can be used anywhere in Cyrodiil it can be set up.
Also since all alliances can do it it is not an advantage.
Also simply flipping the flags removes all forward camps and the camps have a 5 min timer before you can use them again so endless zerg claims are bogus.

And bottom line is there were no forward camps here signs posted.
Taking advantage of and cheating are two different things.
People are such witch hunters behind a screen.

isn't that technically misleading though, as a the it would still be an advantage vs those who dont know it can be done due to it not being intended? I get your greater point here and might seem like nit picking but it does still seem to be the definition of an exploit really.

I mean I had no idea until I saw this thread.