Sorry for the delay, but I have been spending most of my time answering the humongous bulk of emails I've recieved, and have nearly replied to all of them! To give you something to think about in anticipation of my next article, think about this: Very recently there was a bug that allowed a player to stack the +20% damage bonus given from customizing a weapon, over and over again, by changing mods on the weapon. I believe the bug began when the code was altered after a GW build update. I haven't spent much time investigating the effects of the bug, but the effects were probably minor due to the quick patch. Although there may have been some underlying motive, I can't really confirm it; I don't have access to company resources anymore.
But think about this along with the dupe exploit. Why would professional programmers who have worked on this game for years make such an amateur mistake?
Please Vote For Us! Let the truth be heard, and to be spread!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Delayed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I am still not completely convinced that you're credible, but I will keep reading and I may come around after more reading.
Hi,
Why are you calling this bug an "amateur" mistake? As a programmer and engineer, I know for sure that you can't know something like this without knowing exactly what code was involved.
Which lead me to the logical question: what code exactly did you produce for GW? Size? Functionality? Any way you can show us ingame your knowledge of it?
Or if you weren't a programmer, what exactly did you do?
A small bug isn't really an amateur mistake; you are aware of the fact that Guild Wars has a 4 gb client right? And that any additional codes may cause malfunction or conflict to any above codes? This is basic programming knowledge by the way. I believe any developers who have worked under Anet would know this.
Also, you are aware of the fact that Anet is currently working on Guild Wars 2 and post-game of Eye of the North right? If they are so busy with those two factors, would it be inhuman to make a small mistake once a while?
What you have stated above is no more than an assumption, which cannot be justified without any evidence given. Relevantly, are you aware of the negative tone you have? You need to know that even the most deadly murderer will take a day off and drink coffee. Consequently, you have stated only the negative factors, which we still question their justifications. Your intention is questionable.
-Chaos
If they are so busy with those two factors, would it be inhuman to make a small mistake once a while?
^^
LOL u obviously have no idea what youre talking about if you think anet just made "one small mistake". n this isnt about flaming anet for a mistake noob its about other shit.
anonymous said:
>its about other shit.
...which we don't see here, except in general terms and without any form of proof (I guess it wouldn't be easy to have one, but still, without it it's just words ...). COLLUSION of Anet with GFCs? INTENTIONAL exploits in the code? Anyone could invent these stories, only a real ex-Anet employee would back this up with details.
So, we're all waiting for more meat. Because until there's evidence, or a sketch of it, it's almost empty (and even close to defamation of Anet ...).
Anonymous said:
>LOL u obviously have no idea what youre talking about if you think anet just made "one small mistake". n this isnt about flaming anet for a mistake noob its about other shit.
It's funny how you would jump to conclusion that I have no idea what I'm talking about. You do realize that this is only a reply to the "Delayed" post, right?
As I mentioned in my previous comment, "a small mistake once a while" is no more than a figurative language that is used to describe the absurdness of the topic. If you do not know what figurative language means, let me explain to you what this term means. Figurative language is defined as a technique that is used to achieve a special effect or meaning beyond its literal meaning.
For your information, I am aware of the other topics that are informed on this link. If you would stop making assumptions and read the comments on the initial post, you should see my reply there.
For what I have gathered above, you are the one who has no idea what he is talking about. Even worse, you cannot be specific with your argument. If you do have a brain, please use it before writing your next comment.
P.S: Please fix your grammar mistakes.
-Chaos
>*LOL* @ the poster above. Are you too entrenched in your goddamn ego that you don't realize you look like a fucking dipshit for putting a -Chaos tag at the end?
But then, internet is full of fucking idiots that love to embarrass themselves.
Bravo, you have attacked the most pointless factor of my comment. Would you like a cookie for such accomplishment?
I don't see what's so embarrassing with using a small identification for my comments; after all, they are more intelligent than some other comments here.
I find it funny how you would find such identification as an insult to one's self. It is absurd. Guess some people will always be embarrassed with what they say, and thus their embarrassment will be extended as identification is given. I'm sorry, but I'm not like you.
I have specifically asked for more intelligent comments in my former post. However, all I got is people attempting to make insults; even worse, their attempt ultimately failed.
Like you said, "internet is full of idiots who love to embarrass themselves." It is indeed true; I am looking at one right now.
-Chaos
I think he's pointing towards your stupidity of not putting the Chaos tag in the identity section of the post, rather than anything else.
[...] Which lead me to the logical question: what code exactly did you produce for GW? Size? Functionality? Any way you can show us ingame your knowledge of it?
Or if you weren't a programmer, what exactly did you do?
Exactly! Who the heck are you, anyway? The MMOBux interview is as vague as your blog. Hold your horses! I'm not saying that you're a frustrated ex-janitor that cleansed A-net's floors, but for [insert verb here] sakes can you be more speciffic? Can you show us your professional side? Don't be afraid that we might not understand your "peculiar" language. Try us!
Post a Comment