He is correct about this. The turrets had a defined hit point value. The first time I targeted one and saw this to be true was the first time I started to think about what approachs my guildies might try to take it down. This didn't occur to me to be an exploit any more than planning on how to take down a world boss. Things that display hit points can be killed, and in a video game players are going to attempt to do so. Now I have to wonder if we organize a multi-guild outting to take down a Pub base on another world, will that also be considered an exploit or griefing on our PvP server?

It seems that the turrets are meant to be a capturable objective (although I personally haven't seen it done) given that there is a yellow triangle with a green dot in the middle of it on the minimap, so I still have a hard time blaming players for taking and holding onto a PvP objective defined by BioWare. So when should the capping of an objective end if there isn't a mechanism to reset the scenario and moreover players are rewarded for holding objectives? What happens when players respawn in the immediate vicinity right after having been killed defending that objective point in an open world PvP environment? Does one ignore them like they aren't combatants? What happens if the try to retake the turret objective? I admit the whole open world Ilum PvP scenario has been a large question mark in my mind from the beginning. I would go out to places on the map with yellow triangles and green dots, but not be able to interact with anything. The first time it made any sense was after the recent patch that encouraged players to actually PvP instead of just sit around watching each other trade objectives. I believe that all of the problems that occurred in Ilum are derived from BioWare’s lack of foresight. Create a new patch that rewards players for holding objectives, mark an objective with a yellow triangle in the opposition’s base, place the opposition’s respawn point in close proximity to the aforementioned objective, and then give high amounts of valor for fighting at that location, now just sit back and watch what happens on the first day of this new patch. Can anyone really be surprised how it played out? No players sat up the night before and figured out ways to exploit this patch, they just showed up and started to finally PvP. At some point people started to realize that they were getting substantially rewarded for holding the base objective point. Should they have been expected to stop Pvp’ing en masse at that point? I think that this is where theoretical and practical come into conflict. All banking analogies aside, I fully expect that players who are put into a new PvP environment, shown which objectives to hold, and subsequently rewarded lavishly for holding these objectives will continue to do so until forced to do otherwise. If BioWare were to crete a new instanced warzone and you realize that after playing it for a few hours by winning you are getting 10x more valor than the other warzones, are you going to stop playing or are you going to keep going and wait for BioWare to state that it isn't working as intended? I think that people need to define what exactly they felt was the exploitive action, namely that people were holding down (“camping”) an objective point for hours on end in an open world PvP environment not balanced for faction numbers, or that they were receiving too much valor during the process; in either case both were defined by BioWare. In the end the players showed up to win, got an advantage without hacking, and held to it. As I said before BioWare should feel completely righteous to go back and adjust down the amount of valor that was provided if they feel it wasn’t working as intended, moreover I feel that it is their responsibility to do so for the sake of fairness and balance; in the same vein no player should complain about having the valor readjusted if it was clearly a mistake on BioWare’s part (any more than if they had erroneously coded a factor of 10 off). Labeling these players as exploiters for playing the game under the imbalanced environment and reward mechanics that BioWare created is irresponsible on BioWare’s part.

It is frustrating but I can say that it also happens on the Imp side. All one can do is report them. Personally I would like to see PvP only offer vanity gear and no experience, and in that way only the people who really enjoy PvP for PvP sake would be out there.

I guess that is open to debate, especially on servers with a substantially larger Imp population (I am Imp btw). Let's hope you are right.

I think the BioWare devs need to read this link, get a good night's sleep, wake up with a strong cup of coffee, take responsibility for their bad open world PvP design, and get to work writing some new code... http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-biggest-dick-moves-in-history-online-gaming/

If valor was gained in a way that was imbalanced I feel that BioWare has the responsibility to correct it for purposes of establishing balance, even if it is in a retroactive fashion. Nonetheless, I don't agree with branding people as exploiters because they were adapting to a situation that was developing around them for the first day of an untried patch. AoC had rez point griefing in their end game zone and I hated it, but it wasn't considered exploitive at the time I left, because Funcom didn't come out and say that it was inappropriate behavior in an open world PvP zone. What is exploitive in a working as intended sense is all determined by statements from the devs. Realize that I have strict internalized rules of PvP conduct that I hold to, but labeling someone as an exploiter prior to a working definition of what is unacceptable griefing in open world PvP is tenuous at best.

I was there that day as an Imp at their base. During that time we never over-ran the base, and I was killed multiple times by turret fire trying to lead a push; did that change at some point? I don't think what exactly is supposed to have been the "exploit" has been sufficiently explained...

I agree with you on 2 points, one that most people who were PvP'ing didn't think they were participating in an exploit, and 2 Agents are OP in warzones (screw that appear out of nowhere, escaping, and repeatedly getting 1st strikes!); the latter mainly because my Sorcerer hates to lose...

QFT! They need a truly randomized, I feel cross-server (to avoid pulling too many people out of other internal server warzone queues), PUG specific warzone queue to maintain balance, but pre-made farming of PUG's isn't considered exploitive...

Thanks, maybe not consistent with the SW lore, but that is my handle for every MMO I have played! Perhaps the fact that I am unsure what the actual exploit was, makes it likely that I wasn't knowingly participating in it? By reading the blog it sounds like "large groups of players began capturing the Ilum control points, then 'camping' at the enemy's base" was the exploitive action? What I have trouble reconciling is that the system seems to be designed around rewarding controlling objective points, and yet has no mechanism to control population imbalances as is adjusted in instanced warzones. I post in Keen’s blog with some regularity, and this was fully anticipated prior to launch. BioWare shouldn’t blame people for zerg controlling of objective points while simultaneously rewarding them for doing so and making no effort to balance faction numbers.

Realize that you are creating a strawman argument over this issue if my personal experience during that day is representative of everyone else's. I gained 2 valor levels over 3-4 hours of open world PvP'ing. Is that not what BioWare intended for Ilum, how was I to know? Although it seemed generous, it didn't feel exploitive. Perhaps your analogy would be more suitably expressed as I walked into a bank and the teller said here is a new toaster for retaining an account with us, and then later finding out that they made a mistake and my account wasn’t eligible for that perk. In either case, whether it be a toaster or valor, yes, I am fully comfortable for them to take it back even though it was their organizational error that brought it about in the first place.

"After Game Update 1.1 went live, we discovered that the Open World PvP area on Ilum was not working as our PvP design team intended. As many of you know, large groups of players began capturing the Ilum control points, then 'camping' at the enemy's base. This led to a very frustrating experience for a number of players who were unable to leave their base and fight back against their attackers." Hey, as much as I may end up regretting getting involved in such a contentious issue, I was in Ilum after the patch and it isn’t appropriate to assume that everyone was exploiting a known bug. My biggest issue with Ilum prior to the patch was that people weren’t PvP’ing; they would stand in visual range of the opposition and repeatedly trade capping objectives. It felt like killing the opposition actually hindered one from accomplishing the so called “PvP” objectives. The night before I logged out by the central objective point only to find that by the time my screen had loaded the next morning, I was already dead. To my astonishment PvP was occurring in Ilum! I excitedly wrote in /Guild for everyone to come on down as it was crazy fun. At one point the Pubs were attacking our base and it was a blast; never once did I think that they were “camping” us as the turret point is supposed to be a capturable objective, correct (although I have never actually seen it done)? The Pubs then left and we went to attack their base; remember that this was a mass PUG and there was no communal intention of griefing anyone, I just finally wanted to try to take their base. Well the combination of the 2 OP turrets and general unwillingness of a PUG to rush en masse meant that over the course of hours we never took it. The difference between “camping” an objective and “turtling” within one is a matter of side. I can’t speak for anyone else, but it didn’t even occur to me until reading this thread that trying to take their base was considered an exploit. At some point people started to post in /General about how quickly valor was being gained; people were either happy or pissed off, nonetheless at least PvP was occurring. It is important to realize that over the few hours that I tried to take their base it was a typically poorly organized PUG; specifically we were only attacking the left entrance and as such Pubs could and did freely leave the right side. The main reason I finally stopped was because the repetition became boring and the frame rate was typically horrendous, worse than a slide show with many Error 9000 dc’s and SWTOR cutscreens during latency spikes. I wonder if perhaps I was not being as efficient as some others at valor gain during this period? I gained 2 levels over about 3 hours, which admittedly seems rapid compared to wz queuing, but not overtly exploitive if that is how BioWare designed it. I am skeptical about this talk of going from level 30 to 60 valor in a few hours, as this was not my experience even as a Sorcerer casting AoE’s like Mardi Gras throws. I have no problem with BioWare going back and adjusting valor gained during that time period to a rate consistent with their expectations, as a matter of fact I think they need to keep refining new systems to maintain balance. What I am not so sure about is throwing around the word “exploit” if by that they mean the Imps trying unsuccessfully to take the Pub base over many hours; at some point their turrets were being defended by as few as 10 players (that I could see from my corpse cam vantage point after unsuccessfully trying to inspire a rush). I never felt that what I was doing was exploitive, and I am sure that many others didn’t either. Two main /General statements were consistently coming through, one being let’s beat their turtle by all rushing in and taking them on head to head, while the other was let’s all fall back so that they might come out and PvP; unfortunately the lack of organization of the PUG meant that neither happened, many just stayed on the platform in front of the entrance, and we would trade off kills on those with enough balls to try to lead rushes on either side. I fully admit that I may be missing something here about what exactly the “exploit” was, but in open world PvP, zergs are king and unless the game mechanics deter that from occurring, then mass invasion of an objective point (in this case their base) should not be considered a “camping” exploit. The only reason the Imps so called “camped” their base was because they were too feeble to take it as a PUG. Take back an appropriate amount of valor to retain balance, that is a good thing, but don’t be so quick to brand people who finally got to PvP in the open PvP area of Ilum while trying to take objectives as designed by BioWare as exploitive. The concept that there was some communal organized griefing mindset in the chaos of a mass PUG on the first day of actual world PvP is nonsensical. Also realize that this is the first time I heard anything about people being warned to avoid Ilum. If they want to do such a thing effectively they need to send out a system-wide in game message such as occurs prior to a server shut down. You can't blame people who are in game for not taking time out from playing to randomly check the forums to find out whether they are ignoring a request to avoid an area.

I am freezing mine due to the Error 9000 bug, I can't stay in a wz match anymore for greater than a few minutes, which benefits no one. I hope they resolve that.

True, but in the vast majority of circumstances a pre-made will destroy a PUG, this is common experience. This is why SWTOR PvP could benefit from a randomized PUG queue (likely cross-server to not pull too much away from individual servers); this wouldn't take anything away from pre-made play other than the farming of puggers, and yet give the PUG-oriented player an enjoyable and educational experience.

"Like", lolz!