I don't think earning 72g per hour is an exploit; it is following the rules of the game.
I agree with you that defining what an exploit is. It can be a bit hard to tell when something rewards more then what developers intended. Arenanet know that and thus never went against people when exploits can be a bit ambiguous. They only went after cases when such a situation was obvious. Most of the game rewards approxmately 1g per hour of play. If you crafted this exploit one by one (the most inefficient way to do it) and salvaged it one by on and stopped to sell 1 ecto every 5 salvages you would end up with 2 ecto for like 30 seconds work (I am being generous here) that means about 60s for 30 seconds. This means playing as inefficient as possible would earn you 72g per hour. Do you really think there is any question if this is an exploit or not?
Sure, hey people you all loose 2 days worth of progress because Rasberry jam thinks its better for the game if everyone suffers for what these exploiters did. Expect this to happen again since exploiters didnt really loose anything and are sure to try again. I know well a rollback would fix the problem but a rollback isnt feasable it would annoy everyone people that did nothing wrong included and what for so that exploiters are free to exploit whenever they feel like it?
Lol check with CCP about that. The faction warfare exploit has been there since faction warfare was introduced so it took months. I was personally aware of some exploits that ran for years. Just cause this one exploit quickly become public knoweldge it doesnt mean they all will.
Because Anet have a vested interest in having no exploits regardless if people are free to exploit or not. Thats plain obvious, what do they gain with exploits in the game? nothing, what do they loose? more money made by exploiters means less gem purchases, people leaving the game cause no one likes to play a game ripe with exploits, exploiters get bored of the game quickly (what do you play for when you have everything ?)
Sure if you sell the box and then you have less bandwidth usage you make more profit but you're completing ignoring the fact that whoever got banned got a refund hence then didnt get extra profit from them because they got the money from the box and saved the bandwidth they'd use on top of that no. They gave him the money back, lost the money for the bandwidth he used from the moment he bought the game until the moment he got banned and also whatever credit card / bank charges that where incurrent at the sale and for the charge back. So your statement is completely wrong on all counts. Banning these players wasnt an extra profit for Anet because of saved bandwidth, it was a cost nothing else.
No you havent not once and you cannot because its absurd. Banning exploiters shines a spotlight on the fact you have an exploit and only developers can create exploits. I have yet to see anyone claim the exploit was the fault of whoever got banned but please feel free to look around and find me a single post were someone states the exploit was the fault of whoever got banned.
I'm not suggesting a rollback. I was merely saying that it is possible. What should be done is to eelete the exploiters' profits if you have to; to the market, removing all their possessions is the same thing as banning them.
I know, for example the Zaishen chest exploit in GW1 existed for a very long time. However, it had almost no result to the economy; if it had, it would have been detected and patched out.
No, as long as people believe that the fault of exploits lay with the playerbase, ANet have no problem with them. They are put out there, and then they are fixed. If they had a profit motive of putting out less bugs, we'd see less bugs in the game.
The banned people got a refund on their gems, not on their box purchase.
No, rants on boards about how the game is full of exploits, shine the spotlight on the exploits in your game. That is why bans happen - the developer don't want to admit that it was their fault that the economy took a hit. Instead, they blame players.