1) Agree
2) Agree
3) Deleting/Destroying an item is not an exploit, its realistic. If you see an enemy running towards you, you still have time to destroy a sheme by tearing it up. This is just an example.
What is an exploit is if you do this after you get into combat/get hit in combat, so this should not be possible.

I agree to a point few (very few items) can be destroyed.

What about bricks? Armor, weapons, tools, leather, sand, lime, etc

Try destroying these things while running, or some just standing there.

Mostly its the armor people are wearing and weapons/tools. Ive seen it happen in other games already seeing it in this game.

Exploits are generally defined by those who define the game itself. While a sandbox leaves much of that definition to the player community, I would still reserve the definition of an exploit to the developers rather than naming a tactic you don't like as an exploit.

See that happen in many games, and evidently happening on these forums.

That said:
1) does seem like a particularly lame tactic and wonder what importance developers will ascribe to it considering the number of other things not yet in game when combat has consistently been given so much attention.
2) Sucks for the looter to be sure. Exploit? Again, don't really feel that's up to us. People have repeatedly argued that objects have no meaning and are to easy to get. If that is the case, there is little reason for someone to need to loot me aside from wanting to negatively affect my day. I see no reason at all to not negatively affect that person's day by engaging in a tactic that they dislike. Only seems fair. Not fun for either, granted, but also would not renew my donations for the sake of the looter's fun. Players like me are being replaced by zombies/bots.
3) was addressed by tomyzr and my response to #2, although on the bright side I doubt zombies will engage in such a tactic.

Considering Jordi himself called it an exploit, I will go with "deathporting" is an exploit =P


You know that #2 is already sorta fixed right? Meaning you can loot others baskets while they are dead? So are you asking for that to change back to not being able to loot bins? On top of that are you asking so that all bins in the world not be made public which is the current plan set in motion?

Did you address my rebuttal? You say it was address with tomyzr however there is a rebuttal which is still not been addressed.

About the term exploit. There are lots of exploits that are not punishable. I exploit the stat system to be great at combat. I make sure none of my stats fall with the stat system they currently have. Its not something anyone will get banned for however, it is exploiting the system for keeping stats from decaying.

Hi MrDDT,

You are confusing two different meanings of the verb exploit.

The first meaning, which you are using, merely implies gaining the best advantage, the second meaning always implies something unethical. In general when exploit is used as a noun, and particularly in relation to computer games, the unethical or manipulative meaning is more common. Except, of course, when it is usd to describe a very heroic feat.


ex·ploit (ksploit, k-sploit)
n.
An act or deed, especially a brilliant or heroic one. See Synonyms at feat1.
tr.v. (k-sploit, ksploit) ex·ploit·ed, ex·ploit·ing, ex·ploits
1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote

Using #1, and #2 can be close to the same. Do you know what is or isnt an exploit (#2) in this game?
Is death porting #1? or #2? Because I dont know which it is. It could be either or both. My point is that it should be fixed.

Thanks for looking up the word, which its pretty clear I'm clear on what it means, as I didnt mix it up nor did I misuse it. Now my explaining the game to you might have confused you, however, I hope this post makes it more clear.

In all 3 cases it is an exploit, key is how bad of an exploit are they? The range is from definition #1 to definition #2 (#2 = banning or should). Fully #1 isnt a big deal, problem is none of these are fully #1 they are in the middle, and clearly not tended to be used in these ways. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm sorry, I've confused you now. I should have been more precise and indicated that I was replying to the immediately preceding post where you "exploit the stat system to be great at combat", rather than the OP where you describe 3 potential exploits. Keeping your stats high would seem to be very much inkeeping with #1, wheras all 3 of the points in OP have an element that is unethical, which would seem to indicate #2.

If I understood correctly, you are considering maintaining your stats at high levels rather than letting them decay to be an exploit because you believe they should in fact be decaying at a faster rate that would not allow you to maintain them. As such, you are using the current system in a way that takes advantage of it to circumvent the spirit of the design. In that sense, I suppose it could be seen as #2, but I have not, and will not, research how the devs actually feel about whether or not this is an exploit so I can't, in all honesty, confirm nor deny that this is indeed a #2. Not to be confused with what some dog owners consider to be a #2, as that would be inappropriate.

As far as my asking this that or the other as you defined above, I in fact was not asking for anything at all, but merely commenting in accordance with my perception of the situation. I like to do that sometimes.

Regarding the unaddressed rebuttal, I did not address it as I did not believe it to be an effective threat to what Tomyrz was saying. The absence of an address could, in itself, be considered an address in the negative by way of abstinence, so to speak.

Yes, it's late, I've had entirely too much hot chocolate, and must stop typing. Cheers.

Please explain how you plan to define destroying rock while running as realistic? If you dont think its effective threat, he says its realistic. I believe Ive clearly shown that its not. Do you know how to destroy rock instantly while running around?

If you dont think its a threat well, I would counter to say every point you make is not a threat as its clearly not well thought out. You are also wrong in what you "understood" as I was (and did say 2 times already) that #1 to #2 is a range. #2 would be consider wrong by devs and likely get the player banned. While #1 is playing well and using the understanding of the game not something that they would ban over at all. There is grey area all in the middle of those 2.

What I believe on the matter isnt the point, at all. Its about what the devs believe.

Thank you to Book for showing that a #2 is indeed a common denominator :)