Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: BE business ethics question
that way you get more money, and he gets stuck with all the stupid CL 10 CH DEVALUING pets. Then Kill him again. Tell him that one was for me. Message Edited by GMANHNC on 10-15-2004 07:09 PM
GMANHNC wrote:
What you should do... after you kill him... is figure out how he is doing it... most likely MH MH SP1 SP1 SP1 then sell them to him for 20k
Message Edited by GMANHNC on 10-15-2004 07:09 PM
thats what i did once i found a decent recipe. went through 40 samples of MH in less than an hour. at 80k a pop on my vendor it was well worth it for my time. i would stop him, stop him fast.
ban list -> his name
ban list -> guild:hisguild
From NancyJ's Dev Communication Thread:
Keldarin's answer was:
These pets are more powerful than level 10 cloned pets are intended to be. I would not go so far as saying that players who made these "cheated" however. It is known that there are still ways to create these overpowered pets and they will be tuned down. When that happens they will be considered invalid and will have their stats/level adjusted automatically.
I'd be very interested in knowing how the "High HAM, High Kinetic" pet was made. That one has stats that are even out of the range that I was aware could be made. The other one is pretty standard for the broken pets however.
Note the careful verbage... 'broken' not 'bug' and the people that create them are not 'cheaters' (ie. exploiters). The vagueness, intentional or not, lends validity to both the "they are exploits!" opinion and the "they are not!" opinion.
Message Edited by GMANHNC on 10-16-2004 10:10 AM
GMANHNC wrote:
lol you people will never give up... it is a question of ethics... if you know some thing is wrong and you do it anyway you are morraly bankrupt, unless you are a lawyer or politicianthan it is ok.
True. But, in issues where people are completely split on what is right and wrong (like this one), its not so simplistic. Islam and Christianity are pitted against eachother, but both are ethical within their own religious systems. Whose right (if either)? No one will ever know until they die.
In this issue, the devs are God, and they have remained as vague as possible, leaving every BE to decide what their ethics are going to be.
Zapper_Weisman wrote:
GMANHNC wrote:lol you people will never give up... it is a question of ethics... if you know some thing is wrong and you do it anyway you are morraly bankrupt, unless you are a lawyer or politicianthan it is ok.True. But, in issues where people are completely split on what is right and wrong (like this one), its not so simplistic. Islam and Christianity are pitted against eachother, but both are ethical within their own religious systems. Whose right (if either)? No one will ever know until they die.
In this issue, the devs are God, and they have remained as vague as possible, leaving every BE to decide what their ethics are going to be.
They havent been at all vague, they have quite categorically stated that pets that powerful are not intended to be in the game and when they are fixed it will be done retroactively, nerfing ALL these pets that are still in existance.
How is that vague?
NancyJ wrote:
They havent been at all vague, they have quite categorically stated that pets that powerful are not intended to be in the game and when they are fixed it will be done retroactively, nerfing ALL these pets that are still in existance.
How is that vague?
Ofcourse it was unethical to use vendors as storage before items limits were introduced. Its unethical to do anyting you know to be wrong. Just because a gmae mechanic hadnt yet been introduced to attempt to prevent that kind of thing doesnt mean it wasnt morally right to do it.
Saying something is ethical until there are rules against it is like saying its ethical to commit murder as long as it isnt illegal. Do you really believe that?
Whether you make these pets or not is up to you and your own moral code, but as correspondant I have a duty to take the moral highground here, tho even if I wasnt correspondant I wouldnt make them because IMO it is unethical to sell something that
a) I know to be wrong
b) I know is going to be fixed retroactively
c) I'm pushing to get fixed asap
NancyJ wrote:
Zapper_Weisman wrote:
GMANHNC wrote:
lol you people will never give up... it is a question of ethics... if you know some thing is wrong and you do it anyway you are morraly bankrupt, unless you are a lawyer or politicianthan it is ok.
True. But, in issues where people are completely split on what is right and wrong (like this one), its not so simplistic. Islam and Christianity are pitted against eachother, but both are ethical within their own religious systems. Whose right (if either)? No one will ever know until they die.
In this issue, the devs are God, and they have remained as vague as possible, leaving every BE to decide what their ethics are going to be.
They havent been at all vague, they have quite categorically stated that pets that powerful are not intended to be in the game and when they are fixed it will be done retroactively, nerfing ALL these pets that are still in existance.
How is that vague?
Tbh Nancy I think you should ask someone like TH just to make a quick post on the forums saying that these pets are exploititive - it would end all this "yes they did" / "no they didnt" malarky about whether or not the devs have said these are exploits or not.
NancyJ wrote:
The devs do not dictate ethics or morality, thats something that comes from upbringing.
Ofcourse it was unethical to use vendors as storage before items limits were introduced. Its unethical to do anyting you know to be wrong. Just because a gmae mechanic hadnt yet been introduced to attempt to prevent that kind of thing doesnt mean it wasnt morally right to do it.
Saying something is ethical until there are rules against it is like saying its ethical to commit murder as long as it isnt illegal. Do you really believe that?