i want to see this player banned

Status
Joat said:
Yes, I see that know, I was "stuked" at the name there. :D Sorry, my fault. :)

I think this is a subject that never gonna end. Everyone has their own way to
see if it's wrong or not. It can be due to understanding in code, moral and
ethic, egoism, mental illness (like psycopath, Aspergers syndrom,etc) and so
on, and so on, and so on.... ;) No way eveyone will, or can for that matter,
follow a CoU... :) Problems and issues will always occur due to CoU.

yeah, the best reason ever, for not make a better CoU; why bother, nothing could be perfect , right ?
 
Doe said:
yeah, the best reason ever, for not make a better CoU; why bother, nothing could be perfect , right ?
Quite often it's the capacity of the reader, that creates the problems.
Not the actuall CoU.
If the CoU isn't written in peoples native language, more problems occurs.
Most CoUs/EULAs are written in a more general way, and not so precise in
descriptions of whats not allowed. There are reasons for this.
If you do a CoU that is too precise in description of whats not allowed,
and you don't cover EVERY problem/issue, some people will say:
"-Thats not in CoU, so that MUST be allowed!" ;)
A CoU written in a more general way, has higher demand of understanding
from reader thou'....
 
Joat said:
Quite often it's the capacity of the reader, that creates the problems.
Not the actuall CoU.
If the CoU isn't written in peoples native language, more problems occurs.
Most CoUs/EULAs are written in a more general way, and not so precise in
descriptions of whats not allowed. There are reasons for this.
If you do a CoU that is too precise in description of whats not allowed,
and you don't cover EVERY problem/issue, some people will say:
"-Thats not in CoU, so that MUST be allowed!" ;)
A CoU written in a more general way, has higher demand of understanding
from reader thou'....

and ? any wrong in to state and describe very precise at least A FEW of the issues ? like the more important ones atm ? trapping, use of AC, multiple avatars ?
any wrong in to detailed description on MA's site , for avoid misinterpretations ?

Joat, not even the IRL law ever pretends that covers the whole complexity of social interracting....but he still tryes and DOES cover the most important ones , and continually improves and adapt . Like the EU updates should do.
 
Last edited:
Doe said:
and ? any wrong in to state and describe very precise at least A FEW of the issues ? like the more important ones atm ? trapping, use of AC, multiple avatars ?
any wrong in to detailed description on MA's site , for avoid misinterpretations ?

Joat, not even the IRL law ever pretends that covers the whole complexity of social interracting....but he still tryes and DOES cover the most important ones , and continually improves and adapt . Like the EU updates should do.
Yes, they for sure could have some pages at their site, that do describe some
issues/problems, way more precise. The question is how many will look at that?
Since they don't look at CoU now, they probably will not visit that... ;)
But, as I mentioned, if they do try to explain f.ex that acs are not allowed,
and miss something, there are always people that will say it wasn't written in
description, and therefor it must be ok. Doesn't matter what MA do, these
kind people will always try to get a excuse to do as they want.... ;)
Keep CoU in a general way, and the extra site as a appendix to the CoU,
just so people can't use excuses that it isn't covered in CoU.
I have no problem with a more precise CoU, since I have no problem with CoU
as it is. :D ;)

IRL-laws are written so you can use "freedom under responsibilty" quite often.
For the vast majority it works, it's the individual that has the lack of understanding.
 
Joat said:
Yes, they for sure could have some pages at their site, that do describe some
issues/problems, way more precise. The question is how many will look at that?
Since they don't look at CoU now, they probably will not visit that... ;)

People can do what they wish , up to them.
Still you can not condane someone to do something wrong if its not realy stated to be wrong and specially when its an obscur point let on purpose as interpretation.
something like traping is a bug , depend a lot on who is the beholder.
Fact are som trap look a lot like bug , som other looks "natural" behavior...
Still if something is write clear , evryone that would "trap" could get their ban and MA will still looks "fair" since its write clear in rules .


Joat said:
But, as I mentioned, if they do try to explain f.ex that acs are not allowed,
and miss something, there are always people that will say it wasn't written in
description, and therefor it must be ok. Doesn't matter what MA do, these
kind people will always try to get a excuse to do as they want.... ;)
Its cleary stated that AC are forbiden.
There a whole paragraph on third party program softweare and even "phisic" stuff (like autocliking mouse).
If people read or not up to them.
here the problem is not the rules , problem is MA never lock or ban player .
also if the sometime do it , noone never hear about , and so , its like they dont do it.
officially MA never act against player since there no official MA action report ...
If all other game communique about player "punishment" its not just to fill page on forum..
In other hand other do communicate do own forum , do lock and ban .....
 
Etopia said:
People can do what they wish , up to them.
Still you can not condane someone to do something wrong if its not realy stated to be wrong and specially when its an obscur point let on purpose as interpretation.
something like traping is a bug , depend a lot on who is the beholder.
Fact are som trap look a lot like bug , som other looks "natural" behavior...
Still if something is write clear , evryone that would "trap" could get their ban and MA will still looks "fair" since its write clear in rules .



Its cleary stated that AC are forbiden.
There a whole paragraph on third party program softweare and even "phisic" stuff (like autocliking mouse).
If people read or not up to them.
here the problem is not the rules , problem is MA never lock or ban player .
also if the sometime do it , noone never hear about , and so , its like they dont do it.
officially MA never act against player since there no official MA action report ...
If all other game communique about player "punishment" its not just to fill page on forum..
In other hand other do communicate do own forum , do lock and ban .....

this is exactely the point.
peoples have money in this game , not the mention the time spent.
even when one play for fun, the fun is gone when arise the feeling of being robbed and unfair treated.
if MA were to lose players ( depositors), im not sure if this gonna be more because of the competition or more because of lose of trust in MA's fairness and lose of trust in MA's good intentions.
my personal opinion is that MA have more to gain from advertising a secured ( as much as possible ) system and a fair one .
at this moment , EU is percieved as a heaven for scammers and hackers and cheaters, and MA's actions are percieved as complicity with those in order to make profit by any mean.
 
cant they make this trapping spot a pvp-zone, then some uber culd guard it 24/7 taking down all trappers
 
Joat said:
Yes, they for sure could have some pages at their site, that do describe some
issues/problems, way more precise. The question is how many will look at that?
Since they don't look at CoU now, they probably will not visit that... ;)
But, as I mentioned, if they do try to explain f.ex that acs are not allowed,
and miss something, there are always people that will say it wasn't written in
description, and therefor it must be ok. Doesn't matter what MA do, these
kind people will always try to get a excuse to do as they want.... ;)
Keep CoU in a general way, and the extra site as a appendix to the CoU,
just so people can't use excuses that it isn't covered in CoU.
I have no problem with a more precise CoU, since I have no problem with CoU
as it is. :D ;)

IRL-laws are written so you can use "freedom under responsibilty" quite often.
For the vast majority it works, it's the individual that has the lack of understanding.

this is your big question ?! " how many will look at that ? "
and this is your arguement for MA to not make clear statements ?! " they probably will not visit that " and " these kind people will always try to get a excuse " ?!

you post a few contradictory -each to the other- paragraphs .
so finally, what is your opinion ?!
is MA responsible for the lack of proper informative and communication -or not ?
is the creation of an official MA forum a good solution or not ?!
 
major-rage said:
I can only agree. This is a open and shut case. Ban player and give back the money to the lootpool.

forget it. the guy have now 8k usd , from your and my money, due an exploit .
after 1 week, MA did nothing : informe us the circumstances and/or any measure at all.
maybe MA will say something in the new EULA or CoU , but the money are gone .
go deposit and go play.
 
So im a noob... lol but WTF is "tank" or tanking a mob?? :lam:
 
Doe said:
Joat said:
Yes, they for sure could have some pages at their site, that do describe some
issues/problems, way more precise. The question is how many will look at that?
Since they don't look at CoU now, they probably will not visit that...
But, as I mentioned, if they do try to explain f.ex that acs are not allowed,
and miss something, there are always people that will say it wasn't written in
description, and therefor it must be ok. Doesn't matter what MA do, these
kind people will always try to get a excuse to do as they want....
Keep CoU in a general way, and the extra site as a appendix to the CoU,
just so people can't use excuses that it isn't covered in CoU.
I have no problem with a more precise CoU, since I have no problem with CoU
as it is.

IRL-laws are written so you can use "freedom under responsibilty" quite often.
For the vast majority it works, it's the individual that has the lack of understanding.
this is your big question ?! " how many will look at that ? "
and this is your arguement for MA to not make clear statements ?! " they probably will not visit that " and " these kind people will always try to get a excuse " ?!

you post a few contradictory -each to the other- paragraphs .
so finally, what is your opinion ?!
is MA responsible for the lack of proper informative and communication -or not ?
is the creation of an official MA forum a good solution or not ?!
Hehe, no thats not the "big" question, that's just a little tiny remark if
MA did a "appendix-site" to CoU, and if people really should visit the site.
You even have a possible answer after the question. :)
I think I have mentioned a reason earlier why a CoU shouldn't be precise,
and thats due to people will use the bugs/exploits that AREN'T listed
and say "It's ok to use, they aren't in the list". There a lot of posts in this
thread, so quite understandable why you missed it thou'. But, it is also mentioned
in my quted post above...
If you had looked a bit down in post, I say:
I have no problem with a more precise CoU, since I have no problem with
CoU as it is.

I often just gives some thoughts of the subject, so some people can have
some alternative thinkin of the subject. And some also have that. Or agree.
My opinion is that CoU is ok, but not perfect. If those don't get the basics of
CoU shall have some extra help to understand, MA could do a "appendix-site",
with more descriptions. But not written in a way so people can abuse that
text too.
I want a official forum from MA, and most people want that too. More info could
be usefull, and not just about this subject, info of EVERYTHING would be nice,
like a updated roadmap, whats happening atm, and so on. Some info should
be kept inside MA office thou'.
*Hopefully* they will give some info about this threads subject very soon.
 
MisterDepositer said:
611 posts and counting,still no MA :rolleyes:
New CoU today (monday 3rd) so maybe some comments after that? ;)
 
Joat said:
New CoU today (monday 3rd) so maybe some comments after that? ;)
Is the new EULA up yet? Or are we still waiting in suspense?
 
MisterDepositer said:
611 posts and counting,still no MA :rolleyes:

That is because_some_of the community is still totaly pissed. They want people to calm down more.

Plus I think the EULA wil show their official position.


P.s. Damn this thread will replace the other "longest thread ever"
 
Digit said:
That is because_some_of the community is still totaly pissed. They want people to calm down more.

Plus I think the EULA wil show their official position.


P.s. Damn this thread will replace the other "longest thread ever"

EULA Seems to be the same no reference to trapping just the normal "dont take advantage of bugs"
 
predden said:
So im a noob... lol but WTF is "tank" or tanking a mob?? :lam:

please dont mess up this important discussion. make a new thread under the "hunting" froum. thank you.

now back to the topic :laugh:
 
Sonya Heart said:
EULA Seems to be the same no reference to trapping just the normal "dont take advantage of bugs"

lmfao !

Jan shows his muscles : " as anyone could read between the lines of EULA, we dont give a fick : we ban what my muscle feels to, we give 8k usd to whom we want . cry more n00bz"
 
MisterDepositer said:
611 posts and counting,still no MA :rolleyes:

Good, I popped into the last page (618 posts, 22,962 views) but I see my question was answered before I asked....Thanx! ;)

Last page I posted was like on 56.... I'll come back after 50 more pages and see if anything new happens... :wave:
 
predden said:
well excuuuuuuuuuuse me. :rolleyes:
I was only trying to understand what Kerham was talking about in the first post. :wise: lol

to tank something means to take hits/damage from something. eg, to tank a spider you would be alternating between shooting it and healing yourself while it attacked back. They do quite a lot of damage - 1 hit kill on most people which is why he suggested that no way could he tank it.

see, didnt hurt anyone did it, back to the discussion...
 
New VU and new EULA...

Still no response from MindArk...

Wonder if they are planning the next ATH?
 
Doomie said:
New VU and new EULA...

Still no response from MindArk...

Wonder if they are planning the next ATH?

Well isn't the new AI a response from them? I haven't tried it but I assume you can no longer use such traps...
 
Actually in the update content list, it says "The AI of mobs has been improved in order to avoid abuse". I guess that they finally stated that it is abuse, in a vague fashion. No specific article mentioning the act of trapping, but, now I think that without a clearer statement, they have laid the issue directly in their own hands. They say that the problem has been fixed. The only way I can think of to get them to make it clearer is to go attempt to trap one (which I will not do), and post the results here, and in a support case, since MA appears to be ignoring this thread. (Though I am sure they are watching ;) )






Vote Teilk! :thumbup:
 
I am absolutely sure you still can trap them. It is easy to make it better than it was before, but it's neraly impossible to make an AI in a MMORPG so clever that a human cannot trap it sooner or later (because the servers don't have enough CPU power to do real clever tactics, as it's usually not needed and not wanted).
 
Closed upon request from threadstarter..

:locked:
 
Status
Back
Top