Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: What IS legal and illegal?
Spazzers wrote:
This issue is old andhas indeed come up A LOT. Some CSR's will tell you the system is working as intended while others say otherwise. I disregard them completely.
The developers, acknowledging the animals are overpowered and were not intended, have come out and stated very clearly the BE's that create these animals are not cheating and the people who own these animals will not be punished. You'll find that statement in Nancy's thread. Nowhere in that statement will you find the word exploit. The developers hold much more weight in my mind than a CSR since the developers are the people that actually designed the game.
If a CSR accused me of cheated or exploiting by crafting animals using the system as it is designed I would simply and politelyrefer them to the developer's post on the matter. Sometimes the CSR's need to be educated too.
That's true, although from a different point of view, if what Keldarin said is correct, then the creators and users of such pets may in fact be "punished". While I've only sold a limited number of this type of pet to date, I can't see stopping it (at least until I get two for myself, maybe three if I master CH). And even then, I've got my reputation staked with a number of clients that this pet is in fact usable, and will not spontaneously become un-callable. As far as exploit/cheat, those are the words NancyJ used in identifying the issue to the developers; they kind of stuck in my head. (And, if I was a developer, would draw my attention immediately to the issue... hmmmmmm....)
The thing that concerns me about that particular post is the words Keldarin used... "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"... this may not be a direct punishment action (ie, banning/canceling accounts) but will lead to a great deal of very unhappy customers for those BEs that sold the pets.
What I find most amazing is that the Devs acknowledge that these pets are unintended, and overpowered, and yet they did not see in the algorithms for creating pets the possibility that this could happen. Granted, SWG Devs may have been overworked in the past (hopefully bringing more on to the project will reduce errors possibly like this caused by uninvestigated avenues in the algorithm) but there is no secret formula or certain way to make them. Which means the algorithms are working, just not the way the Devs thought they would. I sometimes wonder if the Devs know all the ways the DNA process will function, given the number of different and special libraries they use for the process.
As for CSRs... I tend to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you're right... a wider issue indicated by this may be a need for better trained CSRs. If the process is similiar to the manner in which I was once a <insert major computer OEM here> Certified Technical Support Rep, I am not sure training is the whole answer.
Vardex wrote:
The simple fact that there is open discussion about a combat upgrade and, in the mind of the Developers, a need for change is obvious evidence that the entire system is turning out to be more powerful than they intended.
The issue that I take is that there is talk about making pets we craft invalid and to have them adjusted or make them unable to be called. These "Pets" are actually "Weapons" and should be treated as such; after the combat balance are these high powered Ackley Stun Batons and Powerhammers going to be adjusted too? Where will it end and once it is over will it be truely balanced??
It is not just talk. It has happened in the past. Imagine that you just bought pet that seemed to be particularly well-made, and the next week, when you went to call it, you got a message: "This pet is illegal and cannot be called." How would you feel about the guy who sold you the pet?
This happened just under a year ago. Most of us who were BE's then were called all kinds of names by our customers who thought that we had made the pets using some sort of cheap exploit. Honestly, we were merely trying to optimize the new system we were given.
I refunded money to anyone who had paid for such a pet...and went flat broke. Fortunately most of the pets I had made had been given as gifts to friends who understood that this was a system issue and not one with me.
Pet validity checks have been a sore point with me since then. The implication even in the term "validity check" that we are the ones who are doing something wrong by making the best pets we can still irks me a bit. If we had found that we could half the CL by some series of bizzarre bugged events, I could see it. But that at some point on a continuum we cross an invisible line and do too good of job, thus becoming criminal, irritates me to no end.
(Although I sometimes wonder if some of the city workers in one of the cities I have lived in in the past might be facing jail sentences if they accomplish too much in a day, so maybe it has a real life application.)
Hylidex wrote:
It is not just talk. It has happened in the past. Imagine that you just bought pet that seemed to be particularly well-made, and the next week, when you went to call it, you got a message: "This pet is illegal and cannot be called." How would you feel about the guy who sold you the pet?
This happened just under a year ago. Most of us who were BE's then were called all kinds of names by our customers who thought that we had made the pets using some sort of cheap exploit. Honestly, we were merely trying to optimize the new system we were given.
I refunded money to anyone who had paid for such a pet...and went flat broke. Fortunately most of the pets I had made had been given as gifts to friends who understood that this was a system issue and not one with me.