Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 14:43:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Torki Tavitas Anyway the devs at present have given their approval to this so calling for bannings is stupid.
I didn't know you could get this stupid...
NO THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN THEIR APPROVAL!
They might not have gone out and said that that they want people to use it but they have most certainly not told people not to use. They have not even said that they disaprove of it.
So I should probably rephrase it say that CCP has given their consent to people using it for now.
They have not given an official position on what their feeling are about the manner. They simply told people that until further notice noone will get banned for using it.
CCP has a long history of allowing stuff they might not like in the game. It used to be perfectly OK for people to fight off Concord until they went and changed the rules on that.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 14:50:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
They might not have gone out and said that that they want people to use it but they have most certainly not told people not to use. They have not even said that they disaprove of it.
So I should probably rephrase it say that CCP has given their consent to people using it for now.
They have not given an official position on what their feeling are about the manner. They simply told people that until further notice noone will get banned for using it.
CCP has a long history of allowing stuff they might not like in the game. It used to be perfectly OK for people to fight off Concord until they went and changed the rules on that.
Explicitly, here is what CCP has said on this issue:
Originally by: CCP Lingorm I will find out for you.
My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.
Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.
Originally by: GM Grimmi There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
I have bolded the important parts here. A Dev has said he has to check to see if it's ok, and that we shouldn't take his gut reaction as CCP approval. A GM said that he can't find any specific violation of the EULA or the TOS, and as such will not ban people for using it now. Both say that CCP is going to investigate and make a decision at a later time.
This means the program is not disallowed, but it's not allowed either. It's being judged right now. I wouldn't take that as a blanket approval to use it as much as you like until CCP cranks down, but go ahead if you want. We both know that this program will be banned or the code will be changed very soon.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Shadow Joy
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 14:51:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
They might not have gone out and said that that they want people to use it but they have most certainly not told people not to use. They have not even said that they disaprove of it.
So I should probably rephrase it say that CCP has given their consent to people using it for now.
Giving implicit consent to something you can't prevent isn't saying very much.
We will only find out CCP's true position on this as time goes on. I suspect we will only have a concrete example of their disapproval when the log server is modified/eliminated so it can't be used for 3rd party macroing.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:10:00 -
[124]
Quote: Anyone who thinks that BACON is the problem is a fool. The log server, and thus log analysis has existed for ages. This only exposes the problem to the wider community, much like publishing an exploit.
The problem is, and always has been, that the information available is too good, not that there's a utility for monitoring it.
Bingo. Right now we have an automated system where you are immediately alerted by a visual cue if someone with poor standings enters local.
BACON changes that to an audio cue. Big whoop. Makes no effective difference whatsoever.
The issue is the automated system that lets you know when hostiles enter local.
|
Buxaroo
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:19:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Ki An
/Edit: It doesn't surprise me that the supporters of BACON are exclusively made up of people from failed/carebear alliances and alts.
Exactly. The subhumans who will be using this are all the isk farming/risk-adverse idiots who populate majority of 0.0 alliances. These people (or should I say bots?) only want to make isk safely and securely without ANY risk to their presssssioussss little wallets.
BACON is essentially taking ALL risk from the game if you are in 0.0. Don't give me that crap about this is the same as using teamspeak. Only a moron would think to compare the two. The worthless wimps who use this only want to farm isk without ANY risk whatsoever.
If you are in 0.0, you SHOULD be watching local, watching intel channels, listening on TS. If you can't be bothered to do this, then you are utterly worthless isk farmers who should be banned. You want your cake and eat it to. Sorry, this isn't WoW. Grow some balls.
Bottom line. 0.0 is for the people who want to WORK for their isk. This is the whole reason why there isn't CONCORD here. If you can't pvp or defend yourself, you don't DESERVE to be in 0.0. Using a bot like this will only make 0.0 even more ******* boring.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:36:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Akita T on 22/04/2008 15:40:03
This whole broohaha could be simply solved by *drummroll* including this feature in the EVE client.
I mean, seriously, what's wrong with say, the TITLE BAR of "local" turning red if there's a hostile in local, or turning flashing red if there's a wartarget in local ? Alongside an audible soundbite, for those (few) of us that actually have sound enabled ?
Suuure, you can say it "dumbs down" things a bit. But how about this... say we remove the overview, and you have to VISUALLY find ships on your screen or with your scanner, then showinfo on the pilot, THEN you find out if he's friendly or hostile. How about that ? I mean, you're pushing for realism and work and such, where the hell do you draw the line ?
Death to BACON ? Well, death to standings in local portraits too ! Heck, death to local altogether! And death to the overview too, dangnabbit !
1|2|3|4|5. |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 15:42:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 22/04/2008 15:40:03
This whole broohaha could be simply solved by *drummroll* including this feature in the EVE client.
I mean, seriously, what's wrong with say, the TITLE BAR of "local" turning red if there's a hostile in local, or turning flashing red if there's a wartarget in local ? Alongside an audible soundbite, for those (few) of us that actually have sound enabled ?
Suuure, you can say it "dumbs down" things a bit. But how about this... say we remove the overview, and you have to VISUALLY find ships on your screen or with your scanner, then showinfo on the pilot, THEN you find out if he's friendly or hostile. How about that ? I mean, you're pushing for realism and work and such, where the hell do you draw the line ?
Death to BACON ? Well, death to standings in local portraits too ! Heck, death to local altogether! And death to the overview too, dangnabbit !
A better way to solve it is to change the way the logserver works. CCP has already bent over backwards because of a cheat program once. If they do it again it set a very bad precedent.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Hysteresis
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 16:17:00 -
[128]
I am not for or against BACON, I could honestly care less, however it does give room for some fun ideas
Since BACON is open source, let's make it even better!
On the event trigger for the sound, add your own code in to do the following:
1. Send the information about who came in, name, corp, alliance, etc to another program that we'll call comcom.
2. comcom has the e-mail and adds the information into it's database.
3. comcom continually compiles the information fed to it and creates a set of views of information about who is in what systems and the gates that they took to get there (i.e. their path).
4. comcom's database is exposed to a webserver where players of alliance/corp XYZ can watch the travels and path's of anyone.
5. Sit back and watch as you have created (the first?) artificial (minus the 14 trial accounts/alts) listening posts in Eve.
6. Add trial accounts/alts to the network as you need (cloaked or sitting in station of course!).
I say let's get into some superior data warfare! Know where your enemies are and guess their movements by following the trails of their fleets! Hell, you can add in e-mail response alerts to e-mail your blackberry while you're at work so you can notify the home guard fleet that enemy are taking a direct path to your systems!
Real time traffic updates, see who's in the systems while you're out somewhere else, plan attacks on completely up-to-date information, so many things, so little time!
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 16:27:00 -
[129]
I love how someone thought they had really good logic in defense of BACON and got owned immediately by the next fifty posters.
Its really really funny. |
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 16:40:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
They might not have gone out and said that that they want people to use it but they have most certainly not told people not to use. They have not even said that they disaprove of it.
So I should probably rephrase it say that CCP has given their consent to people using it for now.
They have not given an official position on what their feeling are about the manner. They simply told people that until further notice noone will get banned for using it.
CCP has a long history of allowing stuff they might not like in the game. It used to be perfectly OK for people to fight off Concord until they went and changed the rules on that.
Explicitly, here is what CCP has said on this issue:
Originally by: CCP Lingorm I will find out for you.
My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.
Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.
Originally by: GM Grimmi There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.
I have bolded the important parts here. A Dev has said he has to check to see if it's ok, and that we shouldn't take his gut reaction as CCP approval. A GM said that he can't find any specific violation of the EULA or the TOS, and as such will not ban people for using it now. Both say that CCP is going to investigate and make a decision at a later time.
This means the program is not disallowed, but it's not allowed either. It's being judged right now. I wouldn't take that as a blanket approval to use it as much as you like until CCP cranks down, but go ahead if you want. We both know that this program will be banned or the code will be changed very soon.
That is pure hogwash. Something in this game cannot be allowed and not allowed at the same time. It's as binary as it gets. They can't officially say that it is not in violation of the ToS and then start punishing people for it. In the end it is a legal position and if they don't disallow it right away, then they have to allow it until they publish a change in official policy.
Whether CCP 'approves' of this or not is in the end irrelevant. What matter is whether they 'consent' to people using this program. CCP could have just easily said, "we consider this a ToS violation pending an investigation and we reserve the right to change our position then". They didn't. |
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:15:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
That is pure hogwash. Something in this game cannot be allowed and not allowed at the same time. It's as binary as it gets. They can't officially say that it is not in violation of the ToS and then start punishing people for it. In the end it is a legal position and if they don't disallow it right away, then they have to allow it until they publish a change in official policy.
Whether CCP 'approves' of this or not is in the end irrelevant. What matter is whether they 'consent' to people using this program. CCP could have just easily said, "we consider this a ToS violation pending an investigation and we reserve the right to change our position then". They didn't.
No. Think about why CCP can't just say "Don't use this program or we'll ban you". Empty threat come to mind?
The point that I was making was that CCP has NOT officially approved the program, something that some posters kept repeating. It is NOT officially approved. It is allowed pending investigation. If you can't tell the difference then I can't help you.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
F90OEX
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:34:00 -
[132]
What amazes more is the amount of people who approve of BACON, it clearly shows you the direction of where Eve is heading along with the type of mentally some players think about about how EVE game play should be.
When CCP are done with there findings, I hope they do not allow these type of programs. |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:36:00 -
[133]
The matter is being resolved.
I hope this puts a damper in the "It's CCP approved" crowd.
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:37:00 -
[134]
Ki An is too fast again: from this thread
Originally by: GM Grimmi Greetings,
The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.
Regards,
GM Grimmi Lead Game Master
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:40:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Hamfast Ki An is too fast again
I'm sorta like Superman actually.
|
Buxaroo
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:13:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Hamfast Ki An is too fast again
I'm sorta like Superman actually.
|
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:30:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Ki An The matter is being resolved.
I hope this puts a damper in the "It's CCP approved" crowd.
Yup. I am vindicated. CCP specificly stated that it is not a EULA violation and they will not forbid its use. Therefore any calls for bans for its use is just hot air.
As anything in this game it will remain allowed until CCP explicitly forbids it or changes game mechanics to eliminate it.
|
Bo Bojangles
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:04:00 -
[138]
After reading this thread,.. I've officially hopped the fence to the 'Remove Local' camp.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:01:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Yup. I am vindicated. CCP specificly stated that it is not a EULA violation and they will not forbid its use. Therefore any calls for bans for its use is just hot air.
As anything in this game it will remain allowed until CCP explicitly forbids it or changes game mechanics to eliminate it.
You're pretty stupid if that's what you get from reading that post.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Ikki Phoenix
Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:06:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Hysteresis I am not for or against BACON, I could honestly care less, however it does give room for some fun ideas
Since BACON is open source, let's make it even better!
On the event trigger for the sound, add your own code in to do the following:
1. Send the information about who came in, name, corp, alliance, etc to another program that we'll call comcom.
2. comcom has the e-mail and adds the information into it's database.
3. comcom continually compiles the information fed to it and creates a set of views of information about who is in what systems and the gates that they took to get there (i.e. their path).
4. comcom's database is exposed to a webserver where players of alliance/corp XYZ can watch the travels and path's of anyone.
5. Sit back and watch as you have created (the first?) artificial (minus the 14 trial accounts/alts) listening posts in Eve.
6. Add trial accounts/alts to the network as you need (cloaked or sitting in station of course!).
I say let's get into some superior data warfare! Know where your enemies are and guess their movements by following the trails of their fleets! Hell, you can add in e-mail response alerts to e-mail your blackberry while you're at work so you can notify the home guard fleet that enemy are taking a direct path to your systems!
Real time traffic updates, see who's in the systems while you're out somewhere else, plan attacks on completely up-to-date information, so many things, so little time!
Now that is something of an interesting idea. I like the way you think.It adds tactical opportunities. It expands the war options. I like it |
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 20:42:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Trix Rabbit Ki An: Your argument to me now seems to consist entirely of the concept that I don't understand how anything works at all.
Assume for a moment that I do and respond to my arguments rationally.
You are focusing on the robot aspect of this program. So I will pose a hypothetical to you and I would like to hear your opinion on it.
An alliance wants to try and find War Targets that enter a system. They have a Voice Chat server but they don't want just anyone talking on it. To help with their search for Yarr! they force one of their corp mates to sit in the system of choice and constantly scan local. While technically possible to error in reporting War Targets this particular individual never has. They have been doing this duty for years and not once have they made a single mistake. When they see a War Target they press a button that creates a "beep" noise over their Voice Chat system. No one ever talks to this person and this person in turn never talks to anyone else. They just sit there and press a button to make a beep. Because they have been doing this for years the time it takes for them to send out the beep after a War Target enters local is slightly under half a second.
Now I ask you, is this corporation a bunch of cheaters who should be banned?
Yes the situation is extreme, but I wanted a hypothetical that would address the argument you have avoided. What is the difference between a corp that uses a person who does not error in reporting War Targets and a program that does not error in reporting war targets? I'll tell you: not everyone has a person that does not error. You say that this unbalances the game. I say it introduces something that is much harder for small corps to obtain then large corps. Accurate intelligence.
Are you being stupid on purpose ????
1. you are flying alone connected to 100 empty voicechat servers (be it vent, ts whatever), what advantage does the chat offer you ?
2. you are flying alone with BACON active, what advantage does BACON offer you ?
Which of these situations is better ????
1. Yes a voicechat full of alliance members is an advantage over BACON, but this needs you to actualy have the alliance members, have them out there in each system and scan local like monkeys while you enjoy your safety.
2. On the other hand, we have a bunch of alts logged in each system running BACON and reporting to a central system that is reporting to you.
It is clear that without great people management skills you are not able to achieve 1., however it takes very little effort for a single person to achieve 2.
DO you see the difference ? Voicechat is only a tool that transmits information. BACON is a tool that EVALUATES the information and serves you a RESULT without anybody having to do the evaluation process manualy. And this evaluation process in case of BACON is instant and errorfree.
now think again and post another such stupid post as you do here ... I AM realy in rage this evening ... --- SIG --- Goumindong for CSM. |
Pitt
Gallente Invicta.
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 21:29:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Pitt on 22/04/2008 21:31:38 Was on the fence as well, now tho.... remove local.
If everyone can't use their privilages correctly, remove the privilages or the people abusing them. Since CCP can't tell who is using this macro, they need to remove the source of the information that the macro utilizes.
It makes me abit sad to see that the quality of gamer in eve has dropped so low that there is ANYONE that is defending BACON or any other similer programs.
Frankly, the few that are defending it are very likly the ones that don't have any PvP experiance or have lacking skills to do so adaquitly. Those are the very people that would quit if local took a nerf, which doesn't seem that horrible of a loss.
Simplest solution.... remove local. |
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 21:54:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Yup. I am vindicated. CCP specificly stated that it is not a EULA violation and they will not forbid its use. Therefore any calls for bans for its use is just hot air.
As anything in this game it will remain allowed until CCP explicitly forbids it or changes game mechanics to eliminate it.
You're pretty stupid if that's what you get from reading that post.
Actually I simply see what is really there rather then what I want to see.
People in this thread has said that those that use Bacon are cheaters and as such CPP should ban them. The latest post by CPP clearly proved that wrong. They have stated that no matter how much 'frowning' they do, it is not against the EULA. If something in this game is not against the EULA and CPP has not forbidden it after it was brought to their attention then it cannot be considered a cheat. People who do not cheat in this game should not be banned.
The fact that you want it to be a cheat does not make it so.
Whether a person uses Bacon or not is not purely a personal matter since CPP washed their hands off the issue.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 22:13:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Actually I simply see what is really there rather then what I want to see.
People in this thread has said that those that use Bacon are cheaters and as such CPP should ban them. The latest post by CPP clearly proved that wrong. They have stated that no matter how much 'frowning' they do, it is not against the EULA. If something in this game is not against the EULA and CPP has not forbidden it after it was brought to their attention then it cannot be considered a cheat. People who do not cheat in this game should not be banned.
The fact that you want it to be a cheat does not make it so.
Whether a person uses Bacon or not is not purely a personal matter since CPP washed their hands off the issue.
How cute, you're worried you might get banned.
Well, you won't, don't worry. But what you should really get from reading that GM's post is that CCP doesn't want you to use this program. They are powerless to stop you until they have changed the game, but they still don't want you to do it. Does that make you a cheater if you, knowing this, still use the program? In my eyes it does.
You won't get banned though.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 23:25:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Actually I simply see what is really there rather then what I want to see.
People in this thread has said that those that use Bacon are cheaters and as such CPP should ban them. The latest post by CPP clearly proved that wrong. They have stated that no matter how much 'frowning' they do, it is not against the EULA. If something in this game is not against the EULA and CPP has not forbidden it after it was brought to their attention then it cannot be considered a cheat. People who do not cheat in this game should not be banned.
The fact that you want it to be a cheat does not make it so.
Whether a person uses Bacon or not is not purely a personal matter since CPP washed their hands off the issue.
How cute, you're worried you might get banned.
Well, you won't, don't worry. But what you should really get from reading that GM's post is that CCP doesn't want you to use this program. They are powerless to stop you until they have changed the game, but they still don't want you to do it. Does that make you a cheater if you, knowing this, still use the program? In my eyes it does.
You won't get banned though.
You make me chuckle. You are once again seeing what you want to see rather than what the facts show.
Nowhere in my posts have I said that I use, used or ever intend to use Bacon or any programs of that nature. This is because personally I do not believe that these types of programs should be used to compensate for flaws in the game's UI. I believe that CPP should fix their flawed system themselves.
However, my personal feelings on this issue are irrelevant because only the official position of CPP matters in this. If they say something is a cheat then it is a cheat. If they refuse to disallow the action in question then by definition it cannot be a cheat. Even if CPP wusses out in telling the truth to us straight.
Players wishing that something were a cheat cannot make it so. Otherwise every pirate and high sec suicide ganker would already by banned for cheating.:)
|
Kvirie
Caldari Children of the Wind
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 23:37:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: Ridley Tree
Originally by: Shevar Something that doesn't take skill doesn't automatically mean it's fun to do.
Same reason with the people that either use programs or keyboards/mice to bind multiple keys to a single key. It doesn't take skill to press f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 every time you want to pewpew something (or activating all harderners ever jump etc) but it is highly annoying.
So I really can't follow your reasoning sorry.
You can't follow it, because your initial statement doesn't contain any amount reasoning whatsoever. BACON exists because 'keeping track of local' requires skill and vigilance. BACON replaces that skill and vigilance with a set of computer eyes to do it for you.
F1-F8 macro on a G15 =! Bacon.
G15 exists because pressing 'f1 through f8' requires skill and vigilance. The G15 replaces that skill and vigilance with a set of perfect excecuting computer to do it for you.
F1-F8 macro on a G15 = Bacon.
I know you're only trolling, but please explain the skill and viligance needed to press f1-f8 after something dies, unless you're saying you need to watch for a target to die, which isn't true because if I'm clearing NPCs from a belt so I can mine, I hit the F keys without looking at the keyboard, just wait to hear the sounds of an NPC going poof.
If you can show me a way to watch local without actually looking at it, that isn't a cheat program like bacon, I'd love to know.
|
NightF0x
Gallente Chicken Coup Raiders
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 23:44:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Actually I simply see what is really there rather then what I want to see.
People in this thread has said that those that use Bacon are cheaters and as such CPP should ban them. The latest post by CPP clearly proved that wrong. They have stated that no matter how much 'frowning' they do, it is not against the EULA. If something in this game is not against the EULA and CPP has not forbidden it after it was brought to their attention then it cannot be considered a cheat. People who do not cheat in this game should not be banned.
The fact that you want it to be a cheat does not make it so.
Whether a person uses Bacon or not is not purely a personal matter since CPP washed their hands off the issue.
How cute, you're worried you might get banned.
Well, you won't, don't worry. But what you should really get from reading that GM's post is that CCP doesn't want you to use this program. They are powerless to stop you until they have changed the game, but they still don't want you to do it. Does that make you a cheater if you, knowing this, still use the program? In my eyes it does.
You won't get banned though.
You make me chuckle. You are once again seeing what you want to see rather than what the facts show.
Nowhere in my posts have I said that I use, used or ever intend to use Bacon or any programs of that nature. This is because personally I do not believe that these types of programs should be used to compensate for flaws in the game's UI. I believe that CPP should fix their flawed system themselves.
However, my personal feelings on this issue are irrelevant because only the official position of CPP matters in this. If they say something is a cheat then it is a cheat. If they refuse to disallow the action in question then by definition it cannot be a cheat. Even if CPP wusses out in telling the truth to us straight.
Players wishing that something were a cheat cannot make it so. Otherwise every pirate and high sec suicide ganker would already by banned for cheating.:)
Will you stop jumping the fence every 2 seconds? CCP didn't declare it a cheat because they have no means to detect it so they must allow it until they have something in place to stop it. How hard is that concept for you to understand? I'll say it slower...
T H E Y C A N ' T D E T E C T I T S O T H E Y C A N ' T B A N S O M E O N E F O R U S I N G I T
There, now was it that hard for you to get through your thick skull? CCP doesn't want us to use it but they are powerless to stop it until something can be developed. They already said that it is an unintended use of the log servers and that they would rather players not utilize it because its function will be gone very very soon. ------------------------------------
|
Torik Tavitas
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 23:50:00 -
[148]
Originally by: NightF0x
Will you stop jumping the fence every 2 seconds? CCP didn't declare it a cheat because they have no means to detect it so they must allow it until they have something in place to stop it. How hard is that concept for you to understand? I'll say it slower...
T H E Y C A N ' T D E T E C T I T S O T H E Y C A N ' T B A N S O M E O N E F O R U S I N G I T
There, now was it that hard for you to get through your thick skull? CCP doesn't want us to use it but they are powerless to stop it until something can be developed. They already said that it is an unintended use of the log servers and that they would rather players not utilize it because its function will be gone very very soon.
Why are you attacking me when you say the same thing I did?
CPP did not declare this a cheat therefore it is not a cheat. Wishing otherwise is not gonna change CPP's position at this time.
|
Maliber
TALON'S GRIP Green Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 23:52:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Torik Tavitas
Why are you attacking me when you say the same thing I did?
CPP did not declare this a cheat therefore it is not a cheat. Wishing otherwise is not gonna change CPP's position at this time.
It doesnt change the fact that I still think its a cheat.....
|
Cordran Li
Gallente The Really Awesome Players Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 23:57:00 -
[150]
What all this seems to boil down to is that local needs to be removed or fixed in some way, and that scanning needs to be improved.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |