Random Acts of Awesome
well, at this time i only actually recall that one quote i posted (it was during school year, so if more was said at dev meats, i missed them)
I had a particular interest in the subject, as I was curious to see how the developers would respond to such a glitch. The reason I recall so clearly is that [ JK ]'s statements were in very stark contrast to how I would expect the situation to be handled, but considering his position, I was obliged to adhere to his choices. sweatdrop
Quote:
I however found the whole ordeal quite comical, and would love to see the original integrities/abuses returned to their original names (what an ordeal that would be for whoever has to sift through all of them) then implement your idea to all rings earned after september 20th (which, shockingly is my birthday)
It is "comical" in that it was a completely absurd response to the situation, I suppose; but being absurd is hardly a goal that one should be aiming to achieve, in terms of public relations. whee
Quote:
as far as i know, self-raging isn't a glitch, and bron stated that the issue with meat would remain, as a now intended feature.
Incorrect on both counts, I'm afraid. Both brands of 'self-raging' derive from glitches in the system, and undermine the basic Rage system. And bronstahd made no such statement - he admitted that it is broken, and simply said that it was not a glitch they would consider punishable.
Quote:
and actually, users obtained higher CL (practically speaking, its useless unless someone went into BB-full and suppressed to CL11)
and actually, if you look at any CL11+ rings, they do act as a CL10.001 (random number) ring when suppressed to CL10 (most obvious with meat, at RR1 it buffs to 401, instead of 400), which is a benefit, although a tiny one.
Yes, I suppose those are benefits (and the latter seems like a glitch in its own right). But they are not benefits that anyone was - as far as I know - making any intentional or practical abuse of, especially considering just how irrelevant those are. Simply, though, having the opportunity to abuse the game is not the same as actually abusing it - unless they restricted their scope to those who had actually taken advantage of those differences, calling 'abuse' was not a fair assessment...