Uploading: F3DF833DDE1CEC60E3030BC92AE0F4A8.jpg…
@Lord_Sith
If utilizing existing game mechanics to earn a large amount of Silver Lions is considered a bug exploit, then how do you explain the following?
As an active Community Manager, MajorMcDonalds once created a video—even featured in a developer digest—that taught players how to profit by buying low and selling high on the Enlisted Market. By your current logic, wasn’t that also a violation? Shouldn’t that also have been subject to penalties? Yet, you took no action. This clearly indicates that your accusation of “exploiting a game mechanic vulnerability” is nothing but a fabricated charge.
Experience boosters are a game mechanic. Crates are a game mechanic. Custom battles are a game mechanic. The market’s buy-low-sell-high is a Silver Lion mechanism. If, in your response, you feign ignorance and forcibly try to explain these as fundamentally different, that will be a blatant double standard, which is utterly unacceptable.
According to your own stated policies, anyone involved in gaining massive improper benefits—be it a current CM, a former CM, a Gaijin HR, or a referrer—should be held accountable. Are you simply shielding your own? This is infuriating!
We demand a reasonable and substantive response. Do not dismiss this with another hollow excuse like “map bugs don’t count” (especially when intentional use of an actual map BUG isn’t even considered an exploit by you). Do not ignore this. Provide a proper response to your players.
1 Like
This is the video link. Since it’s not possible to include the link directly, you need to add .com to open it.
m.youtube./watch?v=qzm_MNfnIK4
This video simply discusses the news and ponders what is worth buying and when to maximize efficiency. This is far different from deliberately and dishonestly, knowingly abusing things that provide XP and Silver in incredible quantities far beyond what any player playing the game normally could hope to achieve in the same time.
In addition, this was something developers allowed players to do since it was not possible to do it more than once. Meanwhile, players that were punished recently for abusing exploits had done so repeatedly, many times, to gain excessive Silver and XP.
More than all, it’s worth adding that this video was made about the dev blog for it, and these changes didn’t even come into effect for a good while after this dev blog was published, so if developers had never intended for this to happen, they would have changed it before releasing it.
Lastly, the exploit that punished players abused required the collusion of multiple players (or, in many cases, multiple alt accounts to AFK to farm). This is clearly not playing the game as intended, and breaking a number of other rules in the process. A video talking about a dev blog does not include any of this.
5 Likes
Wait a moment, don’t confuse the public. I want to reiterate that these two things are of the same nature, both earning Silver Lions under your game mechanism. Don’t have double standards. The community manager takes the lead in cashing out Silver Lions and brushing Silver Lions (buying at a low price and selling at a high price). According to your current logic, your account should also be banned in violation of regulations. You said that multiple players are taking advantage of your game mechanism loopholes when playing together. Does it not count as exploiting loopholes when there are fewer players? You said the amount earned is not much, but in the picture in the video, there is someone with thousands of cash out silver lions. Isn’t that considered small? The mechanism for obtaining silver coins caused by the launch of the technology tree and the emergence of a new mechanism for obtaining silver coins after leaving the box are both new mechanisms. You cannot impose a top penalty just because you did not foresee this problem, of course, you may have foreseen it. Are you saying that you are charging according to the developer’s wishes, not according to your so-called terms? Your explanation of clause 3.2.3 is to exploit game vulnerabilities, which has nothing to do with adopting a specific method. However, you are now proposing a separate method to obtain Silver Lion. What is the use of your clause? A single word from the developer is greater than your clause, and the clause is just an empty display? What if one day your developers say that banning players who haven’t recharged is also just a matter of your words?
It appears that you misunderstood what was said earlier. Let me explain more simply so the difference between a discussion and abuse of a mechanic is clear:
- Distinction between discussion and abuse
- The video simply discusses news and reflects on what’s worth buying for maximum efficiency
- This is vastly different from intentional and dishonest abuse of mechanics that provide enormous amounts of experience and silver
- One-time nature of the action
- The developers allowed players to do this because it was only possible once
- The punished players abused exploits repeatedly, gaining unrealistically excessive amounts of silver and experience
- Time for developers to react
- The video was created about the dev blog
- The changes took effect significantly later after the dev blog publication
- If the developers didn’t want this, they would have changed the mechanics before release
- Collusion and use of alternative accounts
- The exploit required collusion of multiple players or using alt-accounts for AFK farming
- This is clearly not playing by the rules and violates several other rules
- The video discussing a dev blog doesn’t include any of this
From this, it can be seen that these 2 things - a discussion video, and blatant abuse for an extended period of time of an exploit where doing so also breaks a number of other rules clearly stated that players agreed to when creating a Gaijin account - are not of the same nature, and are fundamentally different.
