Dancer Archive
Thread: Discussion of constructive modifications to the recursive macroing removal
Sigrun
Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:57 am
#14
Tiaga wrote:
*sigh*
Computers are more flexible than that. They can be programmed to do nearly anything. There are a million ways to stop recursive macros besides just removing commands. (Probably literally.. Computers are that flexible.)
I know exactly how flexible computers are. I've programmed them for well nigh 25 years now.
I also know exactly how inflexible existing code can be. Because I've programmed computers for over 25 years.
And I know how poorly our particular set of developers can think through and then implement a code change, because I've played this game since beta and watched their performance degrade consistently over time.
I suppose you can keep imagining that they'll find some magical way to eliminate buff-bots without eliminating the value of macros. But their recent performance and what I know about computer programs tells me that's not going to be the case.
Tiaga
Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:02 am
#15
You are still making huge assumptions. The fact is until they announce more or this hits test, we don't know what they will do, and going and spreading panic (Some would call it FUD) does nothing to help.
Existing code can or can't be inflexible. But even that inflexibility could be worked with. The most simplistic would be to duplicate the auto-AFK timer, disassociating it with the preferences, and linking it to /dump instead of /afk. Likely to be fairly unintrusive in an object oriented event driven world.
Existing code can or can't be inflexible. But even that inflexibility could be worked with. The most simplistic would be to duplicate the auto-AFK timer, disassociating it with the preferences, and linking it to /dump instead of /afk. Likely to be fairly unintrusive in an object oriented event driven world.
Tiaga
Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:08 am
#16
Sigrun wrote:OH MY GAWD TIAGA! READ YOUR OWN SIGNATURE!DON'T LET THEM NERF THE REST OF US!
The signature is mostly a joke. It crossed my mind when I saw something that affected one group, and then it spread to affect another group that was originally for it, and suddenly they turned against it.
It may be an unpopular view, I don't know, but I believe sometimes there are changes that need to be made to make the game better, but that players may not like. As long as the game ends up better, though, people will stick around. Look at it this way, if you gave some people everything they wanted, they could go to an NPC for a buff, pick up a weapon for whatever skill they feel like using, and take a shuttle directly to the Krayt graveyard to solo a few pushover krayts in the couple hours they had to play Edit: and loot flawless Krayt pearls from each of them. That wouldn't be a very exciting game.
That doesn't mean I want to piss players off. I want to see a great game. That's why I made a proposal that takes care of the intended target (Unattended gameplay) with 0 impact on ATK players, excepting of course their source of buffs.
Message Edited by Tiaga on 08-05-2004 11:10 AM
Sigrun
Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:24 am
#17
Tiaga wrote:
That doesn't mean I want to piss players off. I want to see a great game. That's why I made a proposal that takes care of the intended target (Unattended gameplay) with 0 impact on ATK players, excepting of course their source of buffs.
Message Edited by Tiaga on 08-05-2004 11:10 AM
Please share that proposal with the rest of us, and please put it up in front of TH on his 100+ page thread. Because that ain't what we're arguing about here or there.
PhoenixStar
Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:54 am
#19
Tiaga wrote:
Alright, a brief overview of the proposal I sent to TH over there.
As far as enforcing it, someone on one of the entertainer forums (Sorry, forgot who and where) had a good idea of giving CSR the ability to force a pop-up on your screen that you have to answer to. This could be used any number of ways from just disconnecting you to flagging your account for further investigation.
That's the same generalidea I've postedrepeatedly and gotten flammed over, I guessa bright blue name stillmakes a larger impact on the opinions of the weak minded than good old common sense. Oh well, much better progress than "Theloop keep macro going, macro make bot go, LOOP BAD CRUSH LOOP!!!". 
Sigrun
Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:56 am
#20
PhoenixStar wrote:
Tiaga wrote:
Alright, a brief overview of the proposal I sent to TH over there.
As far as enforcing it, someone on one of the entertainer forums (Sorry, forgot who and where) had a good idea of giving CSR the ability to force a pop-up on your screen that you have to answer to. This could be used any number of ways from just disconnecting you to flagging your account for further investigation.
That's the same generalidea I've postedrepeatedly and gotten flammed over, I guessa bright blue name stillmakes a larger impact on the opinions of the weak minded than good old common sense. Oh well, much better progress than "Theloop keep macro going, macro make bot go, LOOP BAD CRUSH LOOP!!!".
The problem with that approach is that it requires a CSR to be present and to take action. They're neither present nor capable of taking action.
Tiaga
Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:04 pm
#21
I've had CSR responses within minutes on occasions....
But it's not like they need to respond quick.. Buff-bots usually don't go anywhere.
But it's not like they need to respond quick.. Buff-bots usually don't go anywhere.
Sigrun
Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:15 pm
#22
To slightly change the topic... where would you draw the line?
Is an unattended macro, looping or not, to use your ticket at a starport while you bio break a violation of anit-afk? It's only 10 minutes max and it's not like you've anything else to do ingame but wait, right?
What about a macro that keeps you logged in for 30-45 minutes, doing nothing but keeping you logged in? I imagine parents might use something like this in the case they're in the middle of a buff cycle and they need to change a diaper or three (don't ask) or grab dinneror answer the door when they don't want to log and lose a 3 hour buff that they waited in line for 30 minutes to get over a 30 minute stint AFK.
Maybe the rules should be set so that only afk people who are performing insidious tasks should feel the brunt of the "big stick". But then, who defines insidious play? Again, the CSR's for the most part have proven incapable of critical thought even when they do respond, so it can't be them. Unless, of course, SOE intends to hire a sufficient staff competent people and train them well... LOL!
DemmonA
Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:30 pm
#23
Tiaga wrote:
Alright, a brief overview of the proposal I sent to TH over there.
As far as enforcing it, someone on one of the entertainer forums (Sorry, forgot who and where) had a good idea of giving CSR the ability to force a pop-up on your screen that you have to answer to. This could be used any number of ways from just disconnecting you to flagging your account for further investigation.
Instead of any other changes:
How about giving this power to everyone, but you can only call this pop-up once every4 hours or so and you can only be the "victim" of this pop-up once every4 hours or so. You are given 3 chances to enter a 6 digit code, if you fail you go LD.
Gives new meaning to "I'm going to the bathroom please don't kick me"
Tiaga
Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:18 pm
#24
Sigrun wrote:To slightly change the topic... where would you draw the line?Is an unattended macro, looping or not, to use your ticket at a starport while you bio break a violation of anit-afk? It's only 10 minutes max and it's not like you've anything else to do ingame but wait, right?What about a macro that keeps you logged in for 30-45 minutes, doing nothing but keeping you logged in? I imagine parents might use something like this in the case they're in the middle of a buff cycle and they need to change a diaper or three (don't ask) or grab dinner or answer the door when they don't want to log and lose a 3 hour buff that they waited in line for 30 minutes to get over a 30 minute stint AFK.Maybe the rules should be set so that only afk people who are performing insidious tasks should feel the brunt of the "big stick". But then, who defines insidious play? Again, the CSR's for the most part have proven incapable of critical thought even when they do respond, so it can't be them. Unless, of course, SOE intends to hire a sufficient staff competent people and train them well... LOL!
The line is drawn with whatever they decided to do draws it. Specifically, if you can do it with in-game tools it's ok. If you need a 3rd party program, it's not.
Most likely boarding the shuttle will be possible.
Going AFK for 45 minutes, I'd imagine, would not be doable directly, however you have around 30 minutes from when you stop doing anything until you get disconnected, unless you've disabled auto-AFK which cuts it down to closer to 15 minutes.
JohnMarble
Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:45 pm
#25
Game developers don't enter the game and ban people.It's the CSRs, following policy set by SOE. And a good many of these CSRs are in India.
Sigrun
Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:49 pm
#26
JohnMarble wrote:
Game developers don't enter the game and ban people.It's the CSRs, following policy set by SOE. And a good many of these CSRs are in India.
In a normal, single-instance problem, such as griefing, you're right. IF a CSR shows up and IF he shows up in time to see the griefing and IF he has the balls and IF he remembers how to do it, he might chat with the griefer. IF the moon and stars and the CSR's left pinky finger are in the right alignment, he MIGHT suspend. Maybe.
However, that is NOT how the bans went down for the credit duping. The devs logged who was doing it and banned the group they decided was abusing the exploit in one fell swoop.