Posi responds to the responses to his previous announcements on Mission Architect abuse, FAQ-style.
Q) “If I powerlevelled a character, am I going to lose them?”
A) Probably not. Only the worst of the worst, exploitive, powerlevelled characters will be removed from the game. We don’t take retroactive punishments lightly, but some offenses are so egregious that no one would question their intent and those ill-gotten gains should be dealt with. I just want to emphasize that no one is looking to ‘punish’ anyone here, but rather remove the rewards of exploitive behavior.
Though what defines “worst of the worst” remains undefined. As a listserv admin, I can appreciate the need for flexibility, but it’s going to still make some people nervous (arguably the ones who probably could be).
Q) “Are you going to give us an absolute definition of what abuse is?”
A) I know a lot of you want to know an exact definition to see if you were actually abusing the system, or just playing the game, but I don’t want to be set up in a situation where our definition of abuse is abused. For example, if we say that the definition is “you gained 4 levels in under 30 minutes”, then someone will make sure that they gain 4 levels in 31 minutes, so they can claim they were within the allowed limits and not abusing. Someone said it best that the “definition” of reckless driving is purposely ambiguous, being “Disregard for safety”. With this example, I would say that a good interpretation of abuse is “Disregard for the risk and/or time to reward ratio”.
On the other hand, “reckless driving” (and “disturbing the peace,” etc.), while allowing some ambiguity, also allow for abuse. The question then becomes whether one trusts the enforcers of the peace to act justly and be worthy of trust (and have the resources to make good decisions on the number of bad cases).
I do still think this lack of definition is kind of lame. Yes, folks are going to rules lawyer it. So set the threshold down further, offer some exceptions (as people point out legitimate ways to gain that goal), and note that this isn’t going to create automatic consequences, just raise red flags for further investigation.
Treating abuse like obscenity (“I know it when I see it”) is sketchy jurisprudence and not a good way to communicate expectations (which is also an important part of this process).
Q) “Why are you removing badges we worked so hard to get?”
A) I apologize in advance if we remove a badge that someone got legitimately through normal gameplay. We didn’t want MA to become a badge farm (hence why kill-count badges don’t work in MA). Unfortunately the number of “count” badges we put into the system promoted some pretty aberrant gameplay. People forming voting cartels to get Hall of Fame badges, missions whose sole purpose was to tick a badge count clogged up the searches, etc., made finding the honest-to-god story arcs harder than it needed to be. We hope that by removing these problem badges (and adding some new, non-problem, ones in the process) we can see a better play experience throughout the entire MA system. These changes won’t happen until I15, but we’ll get a list of the alterations to you guys early next week.
Any time you build a system that allows rerunning of missions, sharing of mission construction, and badge acquisition through basic activities, you’re going to see this sort of thing. It was highly predictable.
Q) “Am I going to get banned for farming for badges?”
A) Absolutely not.
Good to know (esp. since badges don’t affect gameplay).
Q) “What if people who have a grudge against me complain about my arc and get it banned? Why should I permanently lose a slot over that?”
A) The first time your arc is pulled because of complaints, you do NOT lose the slot. If you get an arc banned and you do lose the slot, your only option at that point is to contact Customer Support. They are the gatekeepers to the slots, and can give you your slot back if it was banned in error.
I shouldn’t expect this would happen to often, though I’ve had enough past experiences to realize it might. It is good that there’s an opportunity for “appeals.”
Q) “You say not to use the word “Farm” in the mission or description. Is that how you are blanket banning things?”
A) We do not do blanket banning based on keywords or phrases. When customer service bans an arc, they are looking at the arc in question when they do it. I ask you not to use certain words in your title or description because players can still complaint-ban your arc, and then there is the fact that we are only human, and even if your “farm” arc is a complete joke/parody ABOUT farm arcs, someone might mistake it for a real farm and ban it, causing both you and us a headache in getting the arc unbanned.
Don’t joke about bombs while in line at the airport — even if you’re not jailed you will likely be detained. Got it.
Q) “What about all the farming and abusing that goes on in the normal game? How come you guys don’t put a stop to that?”
A) We address rewards abuse all the time. We put timers on missions that could get reset for rewards. We take rewards off of critters that are considered exploitively farmable. Or we just change the mission. Merit rewards are another way we have handled the situation. You can’t run really fast stuff over and over and get a reward every time. Again, we are looking out for “Disregard for the risk and/or time to reward ratio”, and we take action.
And, let’s face it, if those other farming/PLing methods were nearly as effective as Meow missions, AE would have been standing empty.
Q) “Why did you guys wait until after the reactivation weekend to do this?”
A) We had a publishing blackout during the reactivation that prevented us from putting new code up onto the live servers.
I’d say that the abuse was visible within a few days of I14 coming out (if not already happening during Beta), The decision may well have been to not stomp on things during Reactivation / Anniversary Weekend, but I think it was a bad decision. Even if I did get a few levels out of it.
Overall, a better explanation for the thunderbolts flung the other day, and a good sign that this is being followed up now with some attention to player concerns.