Ravagers Exploit Action Update

[Andryah]

So you know the ins and outs of credit card disputes?

 

Actually, yes I know a fair amount about the policies of cc companies. How? I read THEIR terms and conditions as well, in the context of California law. I have been a consumer using credit cards for over 30 years. I currently have 5 different credit cards, and remarkably their Ts & Cs are almost identical. Some offer more warranty perks then others.. which CAN come in handy when it's time to dispute something.

 

Thing is.. setting aside all the bluster and bluffing going on in this thread... most disputes are settled by the consumer and the company, which is exactly what cc companies encourage be done. Actual dispute actions by a consumer are considered a last resort.... read your Ts & Cs. If an actual formally filed dispute devolves into an unprovable stand-off in claims... the cc company will decide who wins.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Andryah

[Kunovega]

If the company in their review determines that A) you exploited, and B) it was severe enough to warrant action... then guess what... you get an action.

 

You don't have to like it.. but they are within their rights under the terms YOU agreed to in order to play THEIR game.

 

And if they deny access to a service that was paid for: they are in violation of the law, terms of service be dammed

 

Cell phone companies lost this battle in court despite having extensive terms of service

[BuriDogshin]

There are consumer protection laws that govern this, no terms of service will protect a company that willfully discontinues a service that has been paid for.

Oh, the contract that is the ToS certainly will, when the other party to the contract breaches the contract by violating the Terms. Like by exploiting a bug to gain an unfair advantage, for example.

 

"Break a deal, face the wheel." Resign yourself to it.

 

Oh, and please note the indemnification clause of the ToS:

Upon BioWare's or LucasArts request, you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless BioWare, LucasArts and its affiliates, employees, contractors, officers, directors, vendors, and content providers from all liabilities, claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that arise from a breach of these Terms of Service for which you are responsible.

 

Sure, it's just boilerplate, lots of contracts have clauses like this. But, If I were you, I'd pay a good attorney with some experience in these matters for some advice before attempting legal action against BioWare.

[Kunovega]

. If an actual formally filed dispute devolves into an unprovable stand-off in claims... the cc company will decide who wins.

 

And if the CC company rules against you, you can still file a court case.

 

The CC company will not get the final say, a judge will.

 

The CC companies ruling only stands if everyone agrees to it.

[Andryah]

And if they deny access to a service that was paid for: they are in violation of the law, terms of service be dammed

 

Cell phone companies lost this battle in court despite having extensive terms of service

 

No they are not, as long as they have grounds under the Ts&Cs to take action.. They are only required to refund any active subscription or plan fees that are in effect at the time of termination.

 

What they cannot do is arbitrarily discriminate against a consumer or any class of consumer.

 

So.. when are you getting that settlement check?

[Andryah]

And if the CC company rules against you, you can still file a court case.

 

The CC company will not get the final say, a judge will.

 

The CC companies ruling only stands if everyone agrees to it.

 

You are standing on sand here. No court is going to hear any such case unless it is A) made a class action and B) found to have standing in the jurisdiction of the court at hand. Beyond that.. you could try and take your claim to small claims court.

[lightSaberAddiCt]

Not being a lawyer I took the time to look up the product liability laws. From what I read there are 4 categories that these cases fall into. I think I can fairly say that SoRs whole release and actions to this point fall into the Negligence clause, they knew of some of these bugs prelaunch and NEGLECTED to fix them. Where is the outcry over this don't we want a good product. Or do u want to just argue with each other over Negligence on BWs part. Are u going to sit there and say BW has lived up to their end of the consumers bargain here. There is plenty of blame to go around but some of u have forgotten that we are customers. Act like it, get BW do fix this product and make it worth the money we spend. Quit crying over crap that doesn't affect your real life and get ur idiotic arguments that this effects any of u in any way. Here is a tip spending real money on a bad product and then them not fixing it hurts u in real life. Priorities people...

 

Always hilarious, when someone tries to rely on legal protection, from BW because they may be banned or penalized for breaking a legal document (ie: EULA and TOS) by their exploiting. Man it is getting thick in here, think I may have to wear my hip boots

[Max_Killjoy]

The ToS/EULA is a very complicated and jargonistic version of that sign you see in some businesses that says something like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

 

If EA/Bioware throws you out of "their business", then YOU have to prove that they did so in violation of law or terms of previous agreement. Otherwise, they're in the clear.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Max_Killjoy

[LordArtemis]

Also, because it seems folks have forgotten....

 

Extended User Access and License Agreement

 

Electronic Arts Terms of Service

SWTOR Rules of Conduct

 

Although I will admit there is a bit of ambiguity here and there (which in the case of a contract clearly benefits the person bound by the contract as the general rule of practice) overall I think almost all points of contention here are covered by these three documents relatively conclusively.

 

I would contend that these three documents, the "service and conduct pact" if you will, clearly dismiss most of the major arguments put forth in this thread and others.

 

Feel free to read all three at length...and then ignore them as we both know you will.

[Kunovega]

Oh, the contract that is the ToS certainly will, when the other party to the contract breaches the contract by violating the Terms. Like by exploiting a bug to gain an unfair advantage, for example.

 

"Break a deal, face the wheel." Resign yourself to it.

 

Oh, and please note the indemnification clause of the ToS:

 

 

Sure, it's just boilerplate, lots of contracts have clauses like this. But, If I were you, I'd pay a good attorney with some experience in these matters for some advice before attempting legal action against BioWare.

 

Already have one thats agreed to take this pro bono and turn it into a class action lawsuit

 

If it comes to that

 

The benefits of having bored rich friends with nothing better to do

 

Terms of service do not trump the law, I dont care how much you quote the TOS, it doesnt change this

 

It's really funny that you think a company can just write a TOS and pretend its capable of overwriting the law

[ZETA_SCORPII]

Always hilarious, when someone tries to rely on legal protection, from BW because they may be banned or penalized for breaking a legal document (ie: EULA and TOS) by their exploiting. Man it is getting thick in here, think I may have to wear my hip boots

 

So you know for a fact who the exploiters are (other than the ones who have already admitted so)?

[Andryah]

Already have one thats agreed to take this pro bono and turn it into a class action lawsuit

 

If it comes to that

 

The benefits of having bored rich friends with nothing better to do

 

So will you be paying the court costs, or will your rich pro-bono friend be covering that? I ask because if the court finds your petition to frivolous or simply without standing, they will hit you with court fees and perhaps penalties. So will Bioware/EA legal, as per their ToS.

 

Terms of service do not trump the law, I dont care how much you quote the TOS, it doesnt change this

 

It's really funny that you think a company can just write a TOS and pretend its capable of overwriting the law

 

Terms of service operate within the law, they are not law, they are contract, legally binding under law. Perhaps you should spend some quality time with your alleged rich pro-bono lawyer friend and have them explain the nuances to you here.

 

A well written ToS is very hard to defeat in court. You are much better off trying to prove the company breeched the ToS. Given the state of the art in consumer gaming Ts&Cs odds are not good for you. They have had years to refine these and test them in court.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Andryah

[Max_Killjoy]

Not at all, some people probably are deserving of the title but you sir fail to really put anyone individually into it and choose to just try lump everyone who are more or less "anti cheaters" into it on the assumed basis of trying to justify your actions in the game or defend the stand point that you aren't quite such a cheat after all.

 

You first tried to justify it as being the people who were calling perm bans etc. I clarified this point on my own behalf as not being my standing yet you still persist with this rather dull concept of belittlement.

 

If you want to think of me as a witch hunter for wanting to see punishment dealt to cheaters in the means I feel they deserve I won't lose any sleep of it. In fact I welcome criticism from the likes of people like you who happily exploit a game, try turn it around on the innocent players and still feel they've done nothing wrong and can't just take their punishment in a respectable manner. If it means I'm not like you then more the power to me.

 

No, I consider you a witch-hunter because you keep implying that anyone opposed to your viewpoint must be one of the "cheaters".

 

Also, stop blaming others for your inability to avoid association fallacies and affirming the consequent.

[Hankeypankey]

Ok, I know there has been a lot of chat on this so I am going to try and not beat a dead horse, so to speak. Just a couple things I want to bring up. First off, I am glad the bug has been fixed, BUT reading about all these repercussions I think is ridiculous. The bug happened over the holidays, and as with other businesses I'm sure there were a lot of people at Bioware on vacation making the time to fix problems take longer. That being said there were other bugs with ALL the ops. I personally have 9 60's on BC, and do full clears of the new ops on SM every week since they came out. Every week, 85% of the Ravagers I did the last boss was bugged. We would push the fight to the next phase, click on the escape pod, and the fight would reset. After 4-5 times we would give up and move on. The Underlurker's Devastation worked correctly once, every other fight we did with him was buggy. Don't know how many wipes we had. Raptus healing challenge bugged, again giving up after a couple pulls. The left hand on Brontes coming back at full health on the phase before the final making NiM impossible. All this being said, after reading the latest post about the repercussions that will come I'm a little confused. Benefiting on the bug on Ravagers would give you 40k credits and set bonus chest pieces along with other random stuff, but honestly is that really important to waste time and man power punishing those that used it? Gear will be outdated in 6 months, and it doesn't matter how good your gear is if the fight mechanics aren't followed you will not kill a boss. If we as players are going to be punished for a problem on y'alls end, I expect being compensated for all the times a bug has prevented us from participating in content. It is straight up not good business to punish people for benefiting from a bug, yet not compensating people when bugs prevent people from participating in things they pay for. I have been a subscribing player for a couple years now along with hundreds of dollars spent in the cartel market and have had no regrets, however if we are punished for this I will no longer be a customer. Again, I would not be saying this if bugs in the past had been compensated for, but seeing as that has not happened there is no right punishing players for using a beneficial bug

[Max_Killjoy]

Paragraphs, man. Paragraphs. Your keyboard has an ENTER/RETURN key for a reason.

[LordArtemis]

So if someone shares a lockout with me at the weekly boss and I accept their invite, I am exploiting, right?

 

Are you trying to invoke animus nocendi or cogitationis poenam nemo patitur?

[XiamaraSimi]

Paragraphs, man. Paragraphs. Your keyboard has an ENTER/RETURN key for a reason.

 

And everyone on the forum agreed with max, then the universe exploded. Fin.

[Andryah]

Are you trying to invoke animus nocendi or cogitationis poenam nemo patitur?

 

Hehe.... animus nocendi in the context of a passionate MMO gamer. Scary thought.

[Kunovega]

So will you be paying the court costs, or will your rich pro-bono friend be covering that? I ask because if the court finds your petition to frivolous or simply without standing, they will hit you with court fees and perhaps penalties. So will Bioware/EA legal, as per their ToS.

 

And if you win, they get to pay it. Derp derp, stop pretending you have anything to say.

 

Terms of service operate within the law, they are not law, they are contract, legally binding. Perhaps you should spend some quality time with your alleged rich pro-bono lawyer friend and have them explain the nuances to you here.

 

And a contract that violates the law is not enforceable. You can not just write anything you want into a TOS and than violate the law. I am beyond aware of the nuances here. You are just licking biowares nuts and pretending they can do no wrong.

 

Oh, the contract that is the ToS certainly will, when the other party to the contract breaches the contract by violating the Terms. Like by exploiting a bug to gain an unfair advantage, for example.

 

This was actually by design. Someone created the operation and set the point of lockout after the final boss.

 

Players used an existing game mechanic: sharing lockouts to enter that point of the operation.

 

This is a mechanic that has been present and usable in the game for years.

 

Players have no control over the lockout locations, bioware does.

 

No hacking was done, no special exploits were used, no cheating of any kind was actually done.

 

Players used an in game mechanic to reach a lockout point where it was designed to be.

 

Mind you: bioware had been told about this issue during revan beta testing. They not only allowed it to go to the live servers, they left it up for a month.

 

Later they decided to change the location of the lockout point in the operation timing.

 

Retroactively they are now threatening players who used their original design.

 

Legally, what was the cheat? We used the product we were given that contained tools that were present within the game for years

 

This is just one of many arguments they would need to overcome. Even trying to prove they have the right to call this a cheat is not going to be easy when they designed it to work this way and knowingly allowed it to continue working that way for so long.

 

Had someone actually hacked or used an outside program or injected game code or done any of a myriad of things that are obvious cheats; this would be an entirely different conversation.

 

But as-is; this was players using the game the way it was designed in an environment that bioware was fully aware of when the content was released.

 

That being said, BW would not let it go that far. Not for the $80 it would take them (at most) to give the refund.

 

I know many people who have spent $1,000's on cartel coins. Denying them access to in game items they purchased would require a refund of everything spent for the past 12 months. I can name 3 people who come to a total of over $10,000 between just them.

 

If this was just a debate over $80 I wouldn't even care. At $1,000+ I start to take notice.

[BuriDogshin]

Although I will admit there is a bit of ambiguity here and there (which in the case of a contract clearly benefits the person bound by the contract as the general rule of practice)

 

Not quite. All parties are bound to a contract, by definition.

 

That said, in some U.S. states, at least in the 1980's, ambiguous terms were interpreted to the benefit of the person who did not write the contract. However, in other states, the courts will try to find the most likely reasonable meaning without considering who wrote what. I have no idea how California does it.

 

That said, there are special rules in some states and countries for consumer contracts that aren't the result of any actual negotiation between the parties. So if you really care about understanding your rights under the ToS, you may be well served to contact an attorney that has some experience with California or U.K. consumer contract law.

 

Many of the conclusions about the ToS and CC agreements that people are posting here may be dangerously wrong.

It shouldn't need saying, but please do not rely on anything you read here in terms of legal advice or analysis.

No actual lawyer who wants to retain their license to practice is going to offer you specific legal advice about your rights under the ToS or your credit card agreement in these forums.

[LordArtemis]

Hehe.... animus nocendi in the context of a passionate MMO gamer. Scary thought.

 

Exactly, right? But that is really what it sounds like to me.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

and this effects you how? its not even going to be top end gear for long. nightmare is coming.

 

As I say to whoever brings this up every time now they try justify their actions ... already been over this a few times, read back and you'll find it.

 

 

and ? you can also just take all your mains gear and legacy it to anyone else. i have 16 characters, they share 6 sets of legacy gear. they all wear the best, no crappy undergeared alts

 

Missing the point. The point was the amount of gear that could be generated which you seemed to imply was little to one set yet it is clearly only limited by the amount of level 60 toons one has.

 

it still doesnt effect you or anyone else, so why do you care?

 

Yes it does, read back.

 

How many people got invites from friends/guild without knowing they were doing anything other than sharing a lockout like all the other times a lockout was shared?

 

I've been asked to come in the end of a raid or to come in and do a last boss lockout for guild wide conquest points almost weekly

 

Sharing lockouts is a pretty routine thing; I know a lot of people who got given this without even knowing what they were being given until they were inside

 

I did it on one more character just to see if it was passable as easily as it appeared. After that? I didn't need to, I realized we werent getting the set bonus pieces from the other bosses and would rather just do the op the normal way

 

That boss? Is not hard. He was only hard for the first week when he was freaking broken. Now he's downed in hard mode within hours of reset every week

 

Well if you only did it 2 times you probably have little to fear in the way of serious repercussions other than gear removal I would wager.

 

It's the recidivist players who knowingly went out of there way to do this as many times as possible until they couldn't do it any more due to running out of toons so then went to their guilds/friends etc. and got them all doing it that I feel the weight of punishment will come down on ( and deservedly so ).

 

Be that as it may, first time you didn't know what you were doing perhaps, I can almost buy that. Second time you clearly did so at that point it's pretty much cheating.

 

2 times of course was your choice, others would spend the 10 minutes running all their other toons through to get all the 198 mods/enhancements they would need each week - rinse and repeat for the next toon the following week.

 

Also about the ease of the boss. I don't know about your server but just looking at the harb progression thread ( that some have given up on or don't count due to people running around in illegal 198's but that's besides the point ... )

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=788422

 

I don't think anyone is recorded as having cleared it correctly if I'm reading it correctly? Not sure if you were saying just for you and your guild or if you feel everyone is easily beating it now ... because they're not as far as I can tell and many that can beat it are doing so in the 198's they shouldn't have on anyway ... vicious cycle of sorts.

 

This is how guilds hand out conquest points for ops to players who dont normally do ops but are willing to do 1 boss fight.

 

So yea, 1 ops completion can be given to 256 people for conquest points and loot. And thats the normal lockout sharing that happens every week in this game and has been going on for months

 

This version quite litterally only changes 1 aspect: you save the few minutes killing the last boss would take

 

Stop pretending he was hard, he isnt

 

Now are you going to tell me normal lockout sharing is an exploit? because its still going on with no end in sight

 

How many people should be punished for being invited to the so called "exploit" version when they didnt even know what they were being invited to?

 

OK that is interesting but again I feel that would pertain to storymode at best ( same conquest reward I believe ) and I really doubt you are going to find 256 people able to beat the boss without this exploit bolstering gear.

 

You keep saying it isn't/wasn't that hard but I haven't seen any proof to the contrary. I myself have yet to attempt the hardmode, storymode is challenging enough so I would be interested in some evidence to illustrate your point here because perhaps I should be going straight to hardmode if it's THAT easy.

 

You clearly are not in an end game conquest/raiding guild. We have nearly 1000 members spread between 2 guild tags (because the cap is 500 per guild). Every member has at least 2 level 60's, many of us have 16 or more characters (all of my close friends have 16 to 20 level 60s)

 

We don't lose at conquest, we've beat every op in the game and continue to do so every week.

 

Keep pretending that level 60s are rare and that no ones doing hardmodes, you are clueless

 

Proof or it never happened. Proof also that it was getting cleared BEFORE people were geared in cheated 198 gear too for that matter.

 

Level 60's aren't rare, far from it or this bug couldn't have been exploited so hard, but don't act like every single level 60 in your guild can clear the HM final boss, that's laughable ( unless you're part of the guild that started all this in which case let's hope your guild goes bye bye ). In fact many people were actually trying to justify the cheating by how it's done no harm since even with the 198 gear 99% of people wouldn't be able to clear much/any of the content yet here you are saying it's basically a cakewalk ... which is it?

 

Bioware was made aware of this problem during the revan expansion beta and never fixed it.

 

4th time today I've asked for proof on this ... not sure if it's the 2nd time I've asked you personally either or not ( can't be bothered checking ). The other side I hear is that it was the lootless boss ( you know the original bug that was here at go live ) that got copied from PTS to live, not this exploit. Otherwise basically they had this exploit in pts, launched it with an entire new bug in the lootless bug, then fixed it and somehow put the exploit back in. GG.

 

They pushed it live and left it open for weeks. Now they want to talk about punishing people? Some of whom didnt even know what they were invited into doing?

 

Get bent. Im tired of the threats and the macho BS posturing. If they were going to punish people they should have punished the people who were spreading it the most and charging money for it and they should have done it weeks ago.

 

This is biowares mistake and now they are going to try and take away a subscription and in game items that we've paid real money for? Not gonna happen without a fight.

 

Bioware made a mistake yes but you decided to cheat ( that 2nd time ) so don't try act all innocent. You will get what is coming to you and no doubt like everyone else will accept it and move on regardless of what previous threats were made.

[Andryah]

And a contract that violates the law is not enforceable. You can not just write anything you want into a TOS and than violate the law. I am beyond aware of the nuances here. You are just licking biowares nuts and pretending they can do no wrong.

 

Burden of proof rests with you to prove the ToS is in violation of law. Good luck with that.

 

I know many people who have spent $1,000's on cartel coins. Denying them access to in game items they purchased would require a refund of everything spent for the past 12 months. I can name 3 people who come to a total of over $10,000 between just them.

 

If this was just a debate over $80 I wouldn't even care. At $1,000+ I start to take notice.

 

LMAO. You do understand that unless you are an attorney in the state of California, you have no standing as to any impact to other players, right? It is up to them to press their claims, if they have any. I guess you could try to go the federal route.. but they probably won't hear a case that can be handled by the state.

 

Yeah yeah.. you and your alleged pro-bono lawyer friend will turn this in to a class action. Except you don't get to decide that.. the courts do. You can petition for it.. which your alleged pro-bono friend might want to do so he can get his slice of the class settlement (via inflated attorney fees). When it's all done, every subscriber to SWTOR will get a check for 95 cents... since they will all pile on to the class action (if you can get one), and your lawyer friend will get a third of the total settlement. :p:p:p:p:p:p:p

Edited January 15, 2015 by Andryah

[Frybert]

I know many people who have spent $1,000's on cartel coins. Denying them access to in game items they purchased would require a refund of everything spent for the past 12 months. I can name 3 people who come to a total of over $10,000 between just them.

 

If this was just a debate over $80 I wouldn't even care. At $1,000+ I start to take notice.

 

I was only using that part as an example in my explanation of the other thing. As far as the coins go, you would only really be entitled to any sort of payback on UNUSED cartel coins. You bought and paid for the coins, not what the coins turn into (thats part of the service that has been rendered.)

[Andryah]

I was only using that part as an example in my explanation of the other thing. As far as the coins go, you would only really be entitled to any sort of payback on UNUSED cartel coins. You bought and paid for the coins, not what the coins turn into (thats part of the service that has been rendered.)

 

Agreed. A perma banned player would be entitled to refund for unused coins (IMO).

 

Suspended players.. not a chance. Because a suspension is temporary.

 

Thing is.. I expect the only people to get perma-bans will be those that so clearly and egregiously exploited/encouraged-others-to and frankly these folks will have no grounds to stand on even with their credit card company. But they would still get their refund on unused subscription and CCs I think. Why? Because holding those back would be the only grounds to sue.. and everyone knows that.. so they will simply refund and send the player on their way.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Andryah