Check out the patch notes for the G25 Hypernova: Glyphwright update: https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/64632/g25-hypernova-glyphwright-patch-notes-january-21-2021
[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

Vet Dungeon

Comments

  • TimefallTimefall
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,435
    Posts: 135
    Member
    Sure it would. My point was that they didn't reach the game's end through playing the game itself.

    The only potential subjectivity in the matter is: "Are players meant to receive one chest or eight?"
    And, anyone can see that the game was designed to allocate a single chest per player. The only exception is Alby Advanced, where Normal Mode grants a single player as many chests as they can afford to open, and Hardmode awards extra chests ONLY when 4 players are present.

    Are you claiming it's a bug that the number of chests in dungeons always equals the number of players? And that each players receives 1 key?
    An oversight by the programmers, perhaps? Or maybe when designing that part of the game, they thought "Let's set it up this way so that players gain rewards proportional to the number of clients they can run"?

    Any claim that "a single player being able to receive 4-8x rewards using multiple accounts" is an intended feature of this game is pure nonsense. A blatant lie to themselves, supported by the knowledge that many other players do the same thing.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,970
    Posts: 3,867
    Member
    Then you have contradicted yourself. Your further arguments are subjective; my point is proven.

  • TimefallTimefall
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,435
    Posts: 135
    Member
    edited May 11, 2020
    I have to think at this point that you don't understand what 'subjective' means. None of my arguments are subjective. My entire previous post is explaining that there is not more than one way to interpret this matter. Refusing to accept truth doesn't make a matter subjective.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,970
    Posts: 3,867
    Member
    Timefall wrote: »
    I have to think at this point that you don't understand what 'subjective' means. None of my arguments are subjective. My entire previous post is explaining that there is not more than one way to interpret this matter. Refusing to accept truth doesn't make a matter subjective.

    Subjective means opinion. It is your opinion that although not against the written rules, people using multiple characters on multiple computers is cheating. That is an opinion, that is subjective.
  • Shiro42Shiro42
    Mabinogi Rep: 760
    Posts: 53
    Member
    You two are arguing past each other.

    Timefall: What you're talking about is more commonly referred to as an "exploit". Technically no code has been broken, but what's happening was obviously not intended by the programmers. Of course how you view the use of exploits is entirely up to you.

    Helsa: Picking apart mistakes in an argument's content doesn't necessarily mean the base point of the argument is wrong, and you're right. A slight word change is all it takes to make Timefall correct here: instead of "cheating", "exploit". Actions that exploit the lack of enforcability in clauses in the terms of service are not subjective, or at least in so far as the terms of service are not subjective.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,970
    Posts: 3,867
    Member
    Shiro42 wrote: »
    You two are arguing past each other.

    Timefall: What you're talking about is more commonly referred to as an "exploit". Technically no code has been broken, but what's happening was obviously not intended by the programmers. Of course how you view the use of exploits is entirely up to you.

    Helsa: Picking apart mistakes in an argument's content doesn't necessarily mean the base point of the argument is wrong, and you're right. A slight word change is all it takes to make Timefall correct here: instead of "cheating", "exploit". Actions that exploit the lack of enforcability in clauses in the terms of service are not subjective, or at least in so far as the terms of service are not subjective.

    Sure but then that would be an entirely different statement. Now, if you want to explore if using multiple accounts with multiple computers is properly called an exploit, I'm keen; sounds fun, but this thread is about veteran dungeons and seems to have centered on the idea of letting 8-player teams be allowed to do what are now 4-player maximum dungeons, or not.
  • TimefallTimefall
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,435
    Posts: 135
    Member
    edited May 11, 2020
    As for the topic, my initial point was that increasing the player count from 4 to 8 would be undoing a change already made to improve the game, and would primarily and greatly benefit and encourage cheating. If you'd like something more constructive, then I'll add to the suggestion: Let's allow up to 8 players per dungeon, and have 8 chests appear regardless of the number of players. Then there'd be no need for anyone to drag alts along, saving them time and effort, and other players would get more than one chest if they manage to clear a dungeon alone, making it more worth their while. Everyone would win.

    Edit: restructured my post to put topic first

    Ah, the terminology I use may be a bit different from what others use. However, I'm certain that subjectivity plays no role in what I say here.

    (For this explanation, "rules" does NOT mean what is and isn't allowed. A "rule" here is a cause-effect relationship is is absolute within a system. That system is referred to as the "game". A 'boundary' divides the system from everything outside the system.)
    A game is an isolated reality. A set of rules, boundaries, or whichever term you'd prefer, which make up the reality. The rules define the game. It is separate and distinct from the reality outside of it. To understand what I'm saying, you need to understand what a "game" is. None of this is subjective, it is a factual definition.

    When I say "cheating", I mean to say players are passing through the boundary that separates the game from everything else. It has nothing to do with whether it's allowed or not, or how I feel about it. If I supported it, it would still be cheating.

    Now, the ONLY way it could possibly be subjective is if you argue that using multiple clients to gain more end chests from dungeons was part of the game, distinctly and entirely INSIDE the boundaries which define the game. Anyone, children, elderly, gamers and non-gamers alike, when presented with the relevant information, should be able to identify that it is not part of the game. If the term "cheating" makes you feel bad about your actions, you're free to label it as "exploiting" or whatever term you want. If you insist that it is the intent of the game's design that multiple clients be used to acquire more chests, then you must be aware that you're wrong and aren't willing to admit what you've done.
    **The 'you' used here isn't addressing a particular player. It's referring to the player who would make the above claim.


    Sure but then that would be an entirely different statement. Now, if you want to explore if using multiple accounts with multiple computers is properly called an exploit, I'm keen; sounds fun, but this thread is about veteran dungeons and seems to have centered on the idea of letting 8-player teams be allowed to do what are now 4-player maximum dungeons, or not.

    Abusing an exploit is just a subcategory of cheating.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,970
    Posts: 3,867
    Member
    edited May 11, 2020
    Timefall wrote: »
    have 8 chests appear regardless of the number of players.

    I like that idea. If you have 3, 5, 6, or 7, members though there would have to be some means of doling out the extra keys.
    Timefall wrote: »
    Ah, the terminology I use may be a bit different from what others use. However, I'm certain that subjectivity plays no role in what I say here.

    (For this explanation, "rules" does NOT mean what is and isn't allowed. A "rule" here is a cause-effect relationship is is absolute within a system. That system is referred to as the "game". A 'boundary' divides the system from everything outside the system.)
    A game is an isolated reality. A set of rules, boundaries, or whichever term you'd prefer, which make up the reality. The rules define the game. It is separate and distinct from the reality outside of it. To understand what I'm saying, you need to understand what a "game" is. None of this is subjective, it is a factual definition.

    When I say "cheating", I mean to say players are passing through the boundary that separates the game from everything else. It has nothing to do with whether it's allowed or not, or how I feel about it. If I supported it, it would still be cheating.

    Now, the ONLY way it could possibly be subjective is if you argue that using multiple clients to gain more end chests from dungeons was part of the game, distinctly and entirely INSIDE the boundaries which define the game. Anyone, children, elderly, gamers and non-gamers alike, when presented with the relevant information, should be able to identify that it is not part of the game. If the term "cheating" makes you feel bad about your actions, you're free to label it as "exploiting" or whatever term you want. If you insist that it is the intent of the game's design that multiple clients be used to acquire more chests, then you must be aware that you're wrong and aren't willing to admit what you've done.

    Okay, so let's explore the term "exploit". We could say that an exploit is an ambiguity, contradiction, or oversight in a rule-set. An exploit exists whether you make use of it or not. I don't think you can get a more general definition than that. This statement says nothing about the morality of using an exploit. If you add morality to it, morality being subjective, it becomes subjective itself. Saying that using an exploit is cheating is an opinion. For example, take Minecraft, that game is all about finding exploits. People that find them are lionised. Some exploits the developers feel break "the spirit of the game" and so they patch the code to remove them but those that find them are never thought of as cheaters, quite the contrary. How can exploits then be seen as bad in one case and good in another? It is because exploits are amoral; they are neither good or bad.

    Nexon allows us to make multiple accounts. The only restrictions are on how quickly we make them. Nexon says nothing against having multiple computers logged in. And, of course, they can't because that would restrict participation by households. So, if you have 8 computers, and you take a team of 8 characters into one of those dungeons that you can solo then seven of those characters can just stand by the statue until the monsters are cleared out; one wouldn't even need to use botting. You can spend your money on NX to improve your in-game situation, or you can spend your money on more computers.
    Timefall wrote: »
    Sure but then that would be an entirely different statement. Now, if you want to explore if using multiple accounts with multiple computers is properly called an exploit, I'm keen; sounds fun, but this thread is about veteran dungeons and seems to have centered on the idea of letting 8-player teams be allowed to do what are now 4-player maximum dungeons, or not.

    Abusing an exploit is just a subcategory of cheating.

    That is an opinion.
  • HabimaruHabimaru
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,945
    Posts: 679
    Member
    Too much gymnastics with semantics. Just so you know, the first graphical-MMORPGs were all subscription-based, meaning that each account required that you paid for it with a credit-card, but, because they were also designed to be group-dependent to clear any kind of content, unless you wanted to spend four or five hours a day just to FIND someone or enough people to form a party with in order to gain any «experience» at all, some people came up with the «creative»™ idea to multi-box so that they could maximise the «productivity» with how their «time» was used... considering that there does exist such a thing as people who may work full-time or even over-time (like I used to do all the time), and your «limited hours» are too valuable and precious to be «wasting» on «grade-school level» content when the rest of the whole entire population has moved on and even graduated to Harvard-level content (metaphorically speaking).

    Loading a save-game-file where the «game» was already cleared then performing the actions IS still «beating the game» but it is not TRULY «beating the game» ...I have never had to do such things as I managed to «beat the game» through my own «legitimate» efforts for over 10000 different game-titles until I decided to somewhat «retire» from being a «game-master» (titles included numerous releases for the N.E.S., Atari, Sega Master System, Sega-Genesis, Super-Nintendo, Play-Station, Arcades [without having to pump in more «Quarters» in order to continue; that is what I regard as truly beating an Arcade-Game, and I eventually managed to personally confirm in Street-Fighter II that there is a different display to the ending credits if finishing a «perfect» game, perfect in the sense that you don't lose any rounds all the way to the end, without using any «continues» and it did not require having «perfect health» after each and every round until kicking M. Bison's ***]).

    Also, the word «cheating» typically means that the activity is a detriment to others/another, but someone deciding to multi-box because they have the $$$ to afford to load up another computer or two (or 3) does not typically cause «detriment» unless say to block an entrance or some other «malicious» purpose or in some way prevents others from being able to access certain content so that the multi-boxer would have «exclusive access» to said content. You are going completely over-board with calling the use of more than one account for any reason as an act or form of «cheating» even when it is done with NO «detriment» to other Milletians. This shouldn't even be a «controversial» topic/thread. Reducing the maximum number of party members down to 4 was and still is extremely «unpopular» and I have «seen» this sort of «trend» in other «games» right before their population-base then suddenly took a nose-dive. I do not wish to get into the «semantics» of words/definitions being used in this thread's responses but the description/reference being used for «cheating» really sounds more like some sort of «elitism» way/idea of thinking (e.g.: You used Skill-Training Seals instead of manually skilling up each and every single point of your Magic-Craft with Magic-Craft materials so you «cheated» in order to get Rank 1 Magic-Craft ! [Can you not «see» how silly that is going to seem to most people ?]).
    Momma_Sophie
  • TimefallTimefall
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,435
    Posts: 135
    Member
    In light of your insistence that the game was designed to require multiple clients per player to collect all the rewards, and your wild and frequent misuse of the word 'opinion', I shall submit and revise my previous statement.

    Players who use multiple clients to gain multiple end chests from dungeons are creative heroic exploit hunters, who did not earn most of what they have and are worthy of no respect. My "opinion" that "abusing an exploit for personal gain is wrong" is silly, and elitist. Anything that doesn't result in immediate and severe punishment is clearly justified, and I was wrong to think otherwise.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,970
    Posts: 3,867
    Member
    Timefall wrote: »
    In light of your insistence that the game was designed to require multiple clients per player to collect all the rewards, and your wild and frequent misuse of the word 'opinion', I shall submit and revise my previous statement.

    Players who use multiple clients to gain multiple end chests from dungeons are creative heroic exploit hunters, who did not earn most of what they have and are worthy of no respect. My "opinion" that "abusing an exploit for personal gain is wrong" is silly, and elitist. Anything that doesn't result in immediate and severe punishment is clearly justified, and I was wrong to think otherwise.

    It's hard to tell with internet, but it seems like you're getting emotional. Perhaps it's best we leave it there then.
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,430
    Posts: 96
    Member
    edited May 11, 2020
    Timefall wrote: »
    Players who use multiple clients to gain multiple end chests from dungeons are creative heroic exploit hunters, who did not earn most of what they have and are worthy of no respect.

    I guess training all my skills and raising my stats, grinding hours of my time away to earn gold to reforge my gear/buy reforged gear and enchants, plotting effective damage application, practicing strategies for clearing a dungeon for more further hours until I could efficiently clear it alone, and then investing my own money into buying extra devices is the same thing as getting carried through the hardest content in the game -- and in some cases, making the overall run less efficient and even frustrating for other players -- because some people feel entitled to benefiting from other peoples' efforts and think profiting from your own hard work is somehow wrong and bad.

    I guess all of us "cheaters" should just quit the game and then nobody will run the content at all and fewer drops from said content will ever see market presence (thus inflating the prices -- a thing I've also seen you complain about) and you and others agreeing with you can pat yourselves on the back about how virtuous you were in shutting down the "cheating" at the expense of everyone else not getting access to the content or the drops from it.

    I don't normally care to interact with this community anymore because of stuff like being called a reprehensible or an immoral person on basis of reasoning that makes no objective sense and when such reasoning gets criticized, the arguer engages in a drawn-out game of semantics and definition-twister. Out of three relevant entities in this entire thing regarding multiple use of accounts for content (Nexon, the users of such tactics, and those that abhor them), the only group that has a problem with it as legality is concerned is the last group. When it comes to application of legality, you do not employ morality nor opinion. If you find using multiple devices to increase reward and gain deplorable, you are allowed to. That does not necessarily mean your disgust is justified and "because I said it is" isn't an argument, either. As far as we're all concerned, there's a defined list of rules in the ToS Nexon requires us to abide by at all times and those rules are what governs our activity within the game. Should any activity break those rules, then such activity shall be deemed a violation (a.k.a. "cheating," by definition of "rule violation that occurs an unfair advantage"). Someone having something you don't does not mean the circumstances are "unfair" if Nexon allows and would allow such circumstance to occur across all parties without punishment.

    I'm tossing my cards into this particular thread not to antagonize you. I understand why you think the way you do, because I used to think the same thing. There's a sense of accomplishment that comes with grinding on the straight-and-narrow. However, there's an arrogant and ignorant tone to accusing people that make things easier on themselves as being "cheaters" or in any other sense something to be frowned upon. We're all trying to get ahead and using alts to increase the progression hurts no one in particular so long as Nexon deems it so and no player can evidently be shown to be suffering as a result. Missing out on RAHM runs you never would've been invited to in the first place because someone brought alts instead of you and some randoms doesn't hurt you, because you wouldn't have been invited, anyway.

    Anyway, you're probably going to still think you're right and construct some straw-man and argue that instead of what I'm also saying and/or shift the goalpost. So, I'll just say I enjoyed reading this thread and I don't particularly care one way or the other what happens with the dungeon max party count as it doesn't affect me. Veteran dungeons have terrible drop rates for what people actually want from the dungeons, and I don't see the point in increasing party size if you're still only getting one chest when you run -- unless you bring alts -- and there's no net increase in clear efficiency. If the thread focused more on criticizing the drop rates, I'd be supporting it all the way. But, I don't really expect people that use content for social calls to understand the struggle some people go through when they actually want to play the game, earn power-boosting rewards and materials, and progress their characters towards handling harder content.

    I'm not going to respond to anything more, so feel free to insult, berate, and antagonize me for disagreeing with you without worry of any further pushback. As usual: I'll laugh and go back into solitude.
  • TimefallTimefall
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,435
    Posts: 135
    Member
    edited May 11, 2020
    Edited.

    I'll use this to move forward.
  • AmarazAmaraz
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,090
    Posts: 179
    Member
    Sherri wrote: »
    Agreed, bring back 8 player dungeons.
    Making it 4 only was a huuuge mistake.

    I agree with you, but I can't help but wonder if they reduced it to 4 players to help decrease alts (1 player getting all 8 rewards > 1 player getting all 4 rewards)
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,970
    Posts: 3,867
    Member
    Amaraz wrote: »
    Sherri wrote: »
    Agreed, bring back 8 player dungeons.
    Making it 4 only was a huuuge mistake.

    I agree with you, but I can't help but wonder if they reduced it to 4 players to help decrease alts (1 player getting all 8 rewards > 1 player getting all 4 rewards)

    Doubtful. With only 4 alts you still get all the rewards the dungeon has to offer. Eight end chests instead of four, if that matters, just means running the dungeon twice then.

    No, they did it because Nexon is bankrupt of ideas about how to make content challenging for end-gamers. So, like many gaming companies, that are out of ideas, they either cripple the interface, cripple the options available to you, or in this case cripple the maximum party size.
  • HabimaruHabimaru
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,945
    Posts: 679
    Member
    Doubtful. More-likely the logic probably had more to do with «well we're making Milletians OP anyway so it'll balance things out to reduce the party size» and here we are. Furthermore, eight-boxing is an excessive amount of work and effort, enough to the point where you could literally call it «no-life»-ing and if someone is really willing to put in THAT much «work» and «investments» into all of those computers/laptops, you can probably safely bet that they're some sort of loner who either lives alone anyway with plenty of $$$ to spend on wanting different ways to play with toys or some other reason that allows them to have plenty of space/freedom to have multiple computers/laptops set up somewhere (and are likely mega-whales who contribute a significant %%% to the revenues generated for this region).

    I personally see eight-boxing as an extremely INEFFICIENT way to go about getting «rewards» given how you still have to manually move your «extras» around (even if you «drag them around» via pet-mounting) and it's also been my experience that anything beyond four-boxing will usually cause your characters to often get randomly disconnected since most ISPs won't provide the necessary band-width to handle so many connections unless you're paying premium for your Internet-connection (particularly if there are other people at your house-hold who also use the Internet). I already got contacts on my Friend-List who are willing to «spam-run» stuff where we could do like 30x the amount of runs that somebody «eight-boxing» could pull off in the same time-frame.

    I mean, if you're willing to put your foot where your mouth is and walk the walk, and not just be some sort of arm-chair critic, then I say, please go ahead and be my guest and TRY to do eight-boxing. Go ahead, do it, and record video of you «getting massive rewards» from your eight-boxing in the same one or two-hour time-frame as me making a video with contacts from my friend-list who also go about doing a two-hour spam-run of any mission/dungeon of your choice. It's not like someone eight-boxing is ruining others' experiences other than maybe the ONE «unfair advantage» existing being their increased chances of receiving «raffle-style» rewards such as at the Royal-Banquet (who even attends the Royal-Banquet anymore though these days anyway ? It was literally a «ghost-town» last year until after I made a post a little over a few months back about consistent-advertising and now the population seems to be back again to the point where even the Black-Dragon doesn't go unvisited... unlike last year where Black-Dragon was also an apparent «Ghost-Town» where you'd stand NO CHANCE to Defeat it without being a Mega-Whale unless you literally Multi-Boxed enough to have bunches and Bunches and BUNCHES of Characters with High-Ranked Meteor-Strike ready to drop a gigantic Rock onto its head 50x within the time-limit, and if anybody was willing to put in THAT much «effort» into developing so many «Alt» characters, then I say let them, because they obviously put «work» into it and DESERVE what-ever «rare» rewards they get for coming up with such an «ingenious» plan and executing it with such success).

    Don't forget that not everybody sticks with the same «main» character for their entire life-duration. They may have changed to a different account with another «main» character on another account for what-ever reason (perhaps the previous account got black-robed and they didn't want to risk further data-corruption), or something happened with the second account, etc. The ONE thing I might agree with is that having lots of characters just to login and go AFK in order to «gain the advantage in numbers/percentage» for «raffle-style» rewards may be crossing moral/ethical-boundaries but on the other hand you don't know if they also happen to be someone generous who just gives things out to new(er) Milletians. I have given away «rares» to people who ask for them if I happen to have it without asking for any gold, but if they insist on making some sort of «payment» for the object, then I figure they'll make me take it anyway (I am also this way off-line; except I no longer give $$$ to people who say they need «gas money» because it's been proven that they're all scammers and deceivers so now I would just refer them to go find a policeman who's willing to help them put gas in their car since it's «outside of my jurisdiction to use these funds for purposes other than what I'm here for» [once they know you know enough about the «Law» to be able to get them prosecuted if they're engaged in any form of misrepresentation they'll probably want to back off - especially if you have a pen and paper with you in order to write down all of their information once you start asking all of the pertinent «admissible-evidence» information about them & need to verify everything so that... oups... went off on a tangent here but anyway...]).
    Amaraz wrote: »
    Sherri wrote: »
    Agreed, bring back 8 player dungeons.
    Making it 4 only was a huuuge mistake.

    I agree with you, but I can't help but wonder if they reduced it to 4 players to help decrease alts (1 player getting all 8 rewards > 1 player getting all 4 rewards)