When referring to âthemâ the people who said that mean only those who did it more than 100 times not everyone.
Those who got banned only did so because the devs didnât want to take the time sorting out what they got from spending rewards. While others who may have done the exploit 1000âs of times escape the banning simply because they didnât spend. Not because they didnât show âmalicious intentâ by not spending them, simply they were saving them to spend wisely at next mythic or event etc.
Everyone who exploited over 100 times should have been banned OR revert the accounts of those who spent and ban nobody. Pretty simple really.
I at first was upset that it was during GW. But quickly changed my mind about it.
Youâre receiving back lash, for banning some, and not all. Correct. But I donât think anyone is advocating that someone who used the Exploit 10 times should be banned.
I think all the different opinions can unilaterally agree. Using the Exploit over 100 times is not an accident.
ALL those who used the Exploit egregiously shouldâve been banned. I agree, those who spent the gems really franked up. But analyze your own wording⊠ââŠand showing malicious intentâŠâ
It sounds like you didnât ban everyone that had malicious intent. You banned everyone that acted on that intent. Thereâs a difference. And maybe those with the intent shouldnât receive such a severe punishment as a ban.
But perhaps instead they should be registered as an Exploit offender.
âThis player enjoys using Exploitsâ permanently attached to their profile.
Right now, thereâs zero consequence to those who used the Exploit egregiously but didnât get banned. Which tells me, itâs only a matter of time before they do it again.
Given the reactions Iâve been seeing, I donât really see setting it at 100 being any less likely to result in backlash. People would just be in the thread arguing that theoretical people who used the bug 99 times shouldnât be getting away with it and that it must be âeither everyone or no oneâ still.
Maybe you disagree with the way that they determined malicious intent, but it is a valid way, and I can see the logic behind it.
Thevc, I really donât agree with the reasoning I keep seeing that âThis person doesnât agree with me, therefor he must be malicious or mentally illâ, and it is only getting more offensive every time I see it. No, I did not cheat. I am not âdefending this decision because I might have been banned otherwiseâ. I am not disagreeing with you because I am handicapped or any other dismissive reason. It is no more a sign that I am obsessed or any other thing for replying to you than it is a sign that you are the same for replying back to me every time. You can stop with the personal attacks.
Also, I already answered the question of if I or my guild used the exploit no less than 4 times in this thread already. Itâs gone well beyond âjust asking questionsâ. Saying âIâm not accusing Iâm just asking questionsâ does not mean you arenât accusing when the question keeps being asked over and over and over and over again. Stop it.
To be fair they been very nice with people letting them do it 100 x before interpreting it abuse. If it was me i would say more then 5 is enough for a ban. So people should be happy im not in charge lol
Just as a reminder, please do not use any slurs or abuse players in this thread, or I will be forced to close it. Please treat each other civilly, and do not attack each other when debating this issue.
I really donât know what it is about you that makes you twist the words of others to fit your rhetoric and play the victim. Thatâs your MO; fine. Most of us posting have clearly accepted the 100 strikes limit set by the devs to be the exploit threshold, and now you are trying to drag that into the debate. Thatâs not the issue; malicious intent and cheater definition is. I will be sure to ignore future contributions from you to preserve the peace.
@Saltypatra
Personally, I am glad that a dev has taken the time to make a contribution, even if that contribution is to shed little or no light on the reasoning behind the âparty lineâ you have taken. Imagine this; I am in a guild that lost 2 players and 50k trophies for cashing in on the exploit, and another member who exploited 30k of gems that were not spent remains. The way you have distinguished between cheat or not a cheat means I remain in a guild where I feel that a cheat remains that wasnât punished. The game and guilds are now populated by players who CLEARLY intended to cheat, but didnât quite get around to it (this time). I for one donât feel comfortable with that but thereâs no point in changing guilds because I may well end up with exactly the same sort of exploiters in any guild I join. The ill thought out kneejerk banning is the reason for this. I have no issue with the extremely generous threshold of 100 that you came up with, but you are trying to convince us that cheating is defined purely on whether or not the exploited gems were spent. Some of us just donât accept that and so what remains as far as I am concerned is a game full of potential exploiters who have demonstrated malicious intent and will do so again. Thatâs the problem this decision has created. Nobody knows who the bad guys are because you let them slip through the net. There has to be consistency somewhere along the line and so far the only exploiters that have been punished are the ones who affected the balance sheets. Nothing to do with intent, thatâs just a smokescreen youâre using in a weak attempt to justify this decision. I ask you to reconsider and/or explain your stance in this case. Ban all or ban none HAS to be the decision in this case. Anything else is just mixed messages. The whole integrity of the game is under question as a consequence of poor mod testing by the company and your subsequent decision. As Awryan said, tagging the exploiters and making it public knowledge would be a possible course of action if the ban was lifted. Or tag the cheats who remain so we know who they are.
Maybe the people that did it a bunch but did not spend the gems thought to themselves maybe I should not have done that. The ones that spent the gems had no such thought. The Devs never want to ban people but sometimes itâs so bad itâs kind of necessary. Iâm glad it did not affect the guild Iâm in for sure.
It really isnât âtwisting words to play the victimâ when near every other post from you guys directed towards me contains either a direct or indirect personal attack, or accusation of cheating towards me. If you think itâs all in my imagination, then surely I couldnât find any quotes right?
This isnât even an exhaustive list but I think itâs enough to show that Iâm not making things up to âplay the victimâ. If you donât want me to keep asking you to stop with the personal attacks, just simply stop with the personal attacks.
Now, as to your question about the difference between a guild who had a member who exploited the bug vs a guild who exploited the bug and spent the gems, a key difference would be that the one who spent the gems may have affected the outcome of their matches (on offense and defense) by obtaining new cards, new copies of cards for ascension, souls to level their troops (in the case of lower level cheaters), and/or sentry upgrades using their pool of gems which included those glitch gems, while someone who did not spend the glitch gems did not alter the outcome of the competition.
And if that were the case. And they reported themselves to the devs, then they shouldnât be banned.
Otherwise, feeling a moral dilemma after a player did something wrong doesnât excuse them from punishment.
Well, at least everyone here learned a valuable lesson.
Surely moving forward nothing will be released without being thoroughly tested.
And people wonât use Exploits to gain a strategic edge in anyway. Keeping in mind, Exploits made possible by incompetence.
So youâre ok with 1 arbitrary line being set, but not a 2nd? Seems they set the 2nd line (those who spent the gems) to avoid banning anyone who may have had remorse (youâve already said thereâs no way to know someoneâs intent by assumption). They filtered the pool of cheaters to where they could ban a portion with nearly full confidence there were no casualties. Banning those who didnât spend the gems may very well have crossed their threshold of confidence in who they were banning so they stopped short. Salty never said not spending the gems didnât make them a cheater and that it was âfineâ to do. They simply chose a 2nd arbitrary line to further pinpoint the worst offenders with 99.99% confidence they werenât unnecessarily banning someone. Sure, giving every cheater a negative gem balance would have been more meaningful but the cheaters didnât get anything for their time in the end and the message was sent âwe see what you did & undid itâ. People tend not to commit a crime again when they feel with any certainty theyâll get caught.
No one knew who the bad guys were BEFORE the ban either so your paranoia about not knowing who the cheaters are hidden among us is completely irrelevant. There were cheaters among us before this and now there are a few less. One would certainly hope the person in your guild that didnât get banned realizes how very lucky he/she was and will know better the next time a situation like this presents itself. Silver lining: that many fewer trophies you guild has to make up & 1 less spot to fill. Your GM can always toss them if the fear of cheating again is there. Rehabilitating a player Iâm sure is much preferred to the devs than banning them. Itâs why so many infractions come with 1 or more warnings before an ultimate punishment.
Iâm sorry. I donât see a negative here. Some cheaters weâre banned. Some others were (hopefully) put on a path to redemption & get to continue being productive players. Impact to guilds & players was minimized wherever possible. No one got to keep a ton of illgotten loot & lived to tell the tale. Weâve all (mostly) moved on. THE END.
What? Are you seriously speculating a potential defence of âremorseâ for an individual who connived thousands and thousands of gems from the game by exploiting a bug? Sure took a long time for that remorse to kick in donât you think? Or maybe (seeing as speculation and assumption is what this thread has degenerated into), he went to bed, fully intending to exploit again tomorrow but missed the boat cos the bug had been fixed. I donât know or care about hypothesis, conjecture or speculative assumption. The facts are clear. The devs made a mistake and some CHOSE to take advantage by repeatedly opening mail after mail after mail, racking up a substantial stash of gems in the process. Did they report the bug? Highly unlikely, they just kept collecting and that expresses CLEAR INTENT to cheat the game, their guild and the player base as a whole. There is no need for a 2nd arbitrary line. The arbitrary line was drawn at a very generous 100 activations. That is the number at which the devs decided that players were clearly exploiting their mistake to the detriment of the game. Whether the gems were spent is irrelevant because it is impossible to speculate or assume malice as the impetus which made them spend. Thatâs why this ban/donât ban issue is such a mess. There is no clear message here whatsoever other than to make it obvious (as the 2nd arbitrary line demonstrates because thatâs where the issue involves reparatory work and thus a business concern) that the primary concern of the devs is the financial success of the game as a business. Thatâs totally understandable but you have to take ownership for the quality of the product, and keep opportunities (especially those that you create yoursel) to gain unfair advantage at a minimum. That doesnât happen with gems, as repeated wars exploits prove. And thatâs just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect (oops speculating again)that much of the inane offerings in this thread which absolve the non spenders and devs of blame are from players who exploited and got away with it, but of course, none of them would have the courage to admit it. I wonder how many guilds now have players from the ânon spend 100+ clubâ lurking in their ranks that nobody knows about?
The best course of action has been suggested by other players who acknowledge the issue, and understand the concept of INTENT. Ban all of the 100+ club OR, apologise (devs) for your mistake but take ownership of it being your fault, reinstate the banned and recover the resources. If you wish, then fine ALL 100+ players 5000 gems or so to give the message that you wonât accommodate dishonest playing. A fresh start and we all know where we stand as far as arbitrary lines are. In my opinion its as simple as that.
I personally donât think itâs about remorse. The group who got banned had a tangible impact on the outcome of the guild war by becoming more powerful through spending glitch gems. The group who did not get banned did not impact the outcome of the guild war through their actions.
Even on a personal level; those who spent the gems had a tangible benefit to their account by using the exploit while those who did not spend the gems had not benefited from the exploit in any real way.
There is no line you could draw that would result in no deliberate exploiters getting away with it. As I said before, if it was drawn at 100 exploits, someone who did it 99 times was probably also an exploiter but gets away with it scott free too. Drawing the line on âEveryone who benefited from the exploit got banned, everyone who did not benefit from it did notâ is a fairly fair way to do it in my opinion. The exploiters who escaped a ban this time did so because they didnât benefit from the exploit, not because they âexploited just little enough to get away with itâ
Drawing the line at 100 teaches: âExploit the game in small reasonable amounts to get away with itâ
Drawing the line on spending teaches: âIf you benefit from exploits, you get bannedâ
