Meteor strike training "abuse"?
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
You can view and copy the source of this page.
Erm, I think it was somewhere in Talk:Meteor Strike, or its edit history, or somehow it just popped into my head... I don't remember.
However, before we make hasty movements, lets talk about whether we should put it back in or not. Even though its minor, it can be abused to some extent.
Crumena is a dragon/field boss. Crumena can be accessed in G8 final. G8 final can be repeated if it is not finished. Using these facts and basic logic, you can easily figure out that Crumena is the easiest way to access a dragon if you have access to G8 final. I don't remember anything mentioning that using Crumena as a target was "abuse". In fact, if it was considered abuse, why would devCat even allow it as a target for meteor training in the first place? You'd think they built a list of monsters that count rather than a list of monsters that don't count.
How do we know that Crumena was meant to be a trainable target? The Saga: Iria dragons aren't trainable targets for who knows why (I have no idea about the one in Aces).
It's impossible to know the developers' intentions. However, I still stand by my opinion that it is not abuse. The Saga dragons are the only dragons that don't count and probably the only reason why is because they can't actually be defeated in a story battle, making them count as NPCs rather than bosses or dragons.
Mm, I would say that they probably didn't want to make it easy to train. But that's just baseless conjecture on my part, so I'll concede.
I too think that it's not really abuse. It's just another training method and it's not confirmed if it's even a glitch. And MAYBE, just MAYBE Crumena counts because he has the Meteor Skill.
I don't even think G8 Finale spam is considered abuse considering the little amount of access people have with that. Not to mention the sheer difficulty of going alone (I mean, I can solo it, but that's me 8D).
Well, a countermeasure was put for Jenna's 100% repair which "little amount of access people have with"...
If they have time to patch Jenna in case of a 100% repair event that rarely ever happens, but they don't have the time to patch Crumena to not count for Meteor Strike training. Then something is wrong with their priorities. Or Crumena counting as training isn't abuse.
I fail to see how it could be considered abuse. I've yet to see anyone with a party up looking for g8 final just for training purposes, and even I were to suddenly see a cluster of party ads for that, the cooldown on meteor would still make it a time-consuming process.
Field dragons don't spawn every 30 minutes. Crumena, you can just enter once the cooldown goes away.
Just going to throw a few numbers out.
- you're using magic/druid talent
- you've completed all other training requirements (which would also take a few hours)
- Crumena doesn't troll your ass by flying up during that 5 second period before impact
- you are on g8 final
Just for the smack a dragon training requirement, getting to the next rank/getting the master title would take a minimum of:
- 4 hours at r3
- 5 hours at r2
- 75 hours for master title
Sooo, with all that in mind...do you still think it can possibly be seen as "abusable"?
He's already conceded when he re-added Crumena to the training tips section. We don't really need to continue discussions about this.
Oh, skipped that entire part when I saw the whole info-kevin thing starting up (as usual) lol.
Not to mention the fact that it's 5 against 1. All I can say is that I'm practically outnumbered and overruled.
I've been gone the past few days, and yes the immediate issue has been resolved as Blargel has pointed out. I do agree with the outcome, but I do not think this discussion is over in the sake of future potential abuses, would like to provide a dissent. What I am talking about is the method by which a few of you have used to determine if something is or is not an abuse. Just because a method isn't used, or isn't as useful as another abuse method or a nonabusive method should not change or determine whether or not something is or is not an abuse, in my opinion at least. It should not be based on if its practical or not to perform the "abuse", rather, it should be based on:
- A: Whether it was stated if it was or was not intended (such as the shyllien and hillwen wallers, in which Mabinogi JP [although never DevCAT, NA, or KR] explicitly said this was not allowed and they would begin banning those caught, though to my knowledge this ban spree was never enforced in NA). In such cases, sources would be preferred.
- B: If there was no official comment on it, there really is no way to figure out whether it was intended or not intended. That being said, this may seem problematic, but we should vote whether or not we as players in our own personal opinion, which is not relevant to what the developer believes, thinks it is an abuse or not, only after long discussion.
With the ability to revisit decisions made by either method. After re-reading my point B, I do feel wary of it, but I am solid on A. Even if A and B are crap, the method used earlier in this thread still really needs to be redone.
Anyone agree or disagree?