Curse

FREDtheDINOSAUR · Oct 20, 2009, 09:08 PM // 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSephir

It's there, the announcement you have to agree to if you want to even install the game.

What are the banned people going to do, don't pay monthly fee?

Maybe AN did have a bit faith in GW's players. I'm sure it won't happen ever again.

YESSS!!

Again, EULA. And no, no one cares how many people haven't read it.
Ask a lawyer if agreeing to a document without reading it first is wise.
Actually, you can ask anyone sane and the answer will be the same.

I have buddies who did it too. Doesn't mean they weren't wrong.

Common sense dictates that if you don't know what you're doing is right or wrong you should check with the guy who lets you play in his playground.

That's not something that has to be learned.
You didn't RR, I didn't RR, many others didn't RR. It's common sense.

Yes, it could've been only in EULA and they still would be wrong. Not knowing the law doesn't mean you can break it.

Oh....you're trolling.

Sorry it took me so long to realize that.

HawkofStorms · Oct 20, 2009, 09:08 PM // 21:08

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...406493&page=27

Can I ask people and the mods to keep discussion of bans for RR on the thread about RR. Removal of HB (as my posts have indicated) was a completely separate issue

Mangione · Oct 20, 2009, 09:11 PM // 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by FREDtheDINOSAUR

Oh....you're trolling.

Sorry it took me so long to realize that.

I find his reasoning and his posts in this thread to have a reasoning backing them up. (IOW, he's not trolling)

FREDtheDINOSAUR · Oct 20, 2009, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...406493&page=27

Can I ask people and the mods to keep discussion of bans for RR on the thread about RR. Removal of HB (as my posts have indicated) was a completely separate issue

Then should I take the quotes about RR day bans off the OP? If I do, someone should post them on the OP of the other thread.

Cracko · Oct 20, 2009, 09:18 PM // 21:18

it would have been smart, wise and thoughtfull of anet to put up an announcement, how hard is it? dont you want the best for your players?

if the police say your bike light isnt working and you get away with a warning, i wouldn't ride a bike without a light again.

anet could have done that too, but they havent, its not smart.

MisterB · Oct 20, 2009, 09:21 PM // 21:21

When ANet revise the EULA and/or the RoC, they sometimes prompt you to agree again on the log in screen. So the whole unannounced rules argument falls pretty flat. Ignorance of rules or laws is generally not an excuse.

Quote:

24. While participating in Plaver-vs-Player (PvP) gameplay, you will not participate in any form of match manipulation. Match manipulation is defined as any action taken to fix or manipulate the outcome of a match or alter or manipulate the rankings or ratings of the ladder. This also includes disrupting other people's game experience by not actively participating in matches in good faith, a.k.a leeching.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...sofconduct.php

Cracko · Oct 20, 2009, 09:25 PM // 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

When ANet revise the EULA and/or the RoC, they sometimes prompt you to agree again on the log in screen. So the whole unannounced rules argument falls pretty flat. Ignorance of rules or laws is generally not an excuse.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...sofconduct.php

oh please, i know what you mean and i understand your point of view.

but whats the harm in putting up an announcement?

QueenofDeath · Oct 20, 2009, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangione

I find his reasoning and his posts in this thread to have a reasoning backing them up. (IOW, he's not trolling)

I agree and now I think Fredthedinosaur is the troll.

FREDtheDINOSAUR · Oct 20, 2009, 09:36 PM // 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenofDeath

I agree and now I think Fredthedinosaur is the troll.

I created the page and I'm not trying to do anything other than simply record what I've found on these topics and share my opinion.

Please don't label me a troll simply because you disagree with my opinions. I was assuming he was trolling because he was using obviously divisive language, such as: calling people "retarded" (or otherwise commenting on their mental health), calling people's common sense into question (which is a common troll tactic I've seen on other forums), obviously using aggressive and vehement language, etc.

If you have a problem with my opinion that is fine, but I have NOT attempted to attack people personally as BlackSephir has.

EDIT: And again, I'll ask, should I remove the quotes about bans from the OP? HawkofStorms suggested that those topics be discussed on another thread and if they don't belong here, I'll remove them.

BuD · Oct 20, 2009, 09:47 PM // 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cracko

but whats the harm in putting up an announcement?

Like the one they announced if you were caught HFFing with a bot you would only get a 2 week ban?

Permaban would be hard to swallow after all the HFFbots gettin a slap on the wrist.

HawkofStorms · Oct 20, 2009, 09:59 PM // 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

When ANet revise the EULA and/or the RoC, they sometimes prompt you to agree again on the log in screen. So the whole unannounced rules argument falls pretty flat. Ignorance of rules or laws is generally not an excuse.

http://www.guildwars.com/support/leg...sofconduct.php

That's not the point. It is their game. They can ban you for whatever reason they want to.

The point is, they shouldn't try to piss too many of their customers off. Sure they have a right to ban anybody who has ever used SF if they wanted to. But the fact that that is in their power doesn't make it the right decision to make.

Mangione · Oct 20, 2009, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

That's not the point. It is their game. They can ban you for whatever reason they want to.

The point is, they shouldn't try to piss too many of their customers off. Sure they have a right to ban anybody who has ever used SF if they wanted to. But the fact that that is in their power doesn't make it the right decision to make.

oh, and while we are at it, why don't reward further those who break the rules?

RRers are already getting away with it, and with a bunch of free zkeys, title points and zcoins...

So...
next time some exploit comes up, better be exploiting en masse
and Anet don't dare punish anyone, they shouldn't try to piss too many customers

The Flight of the Banned 117 says hi.

(also, on this issue read the quoted answers by Gaile)

@Queen:
I too think FredtheDinosaur is trolling a bit. A couple of his previuos statements are obvious trolling stuff.

FREDtheDINOSAUR · Oct 20, 2009, 10:08 PM // 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangione

@Queen:
I too think FredtheDinosaur is trolling a bit. A couple of his previuos statements are obvious trolling stuff.

What the hell? Come on guys. Re-read my post earlier. I have not attacked anyone. I disagree with some people, and made that known, but in no way was trying to offend or bait anyone.

own age myname · Oct 20, 2009, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by FREDtheDINOSAUR

What the hell? Come on guys. Re-read my post earlier. I have not attacked anyone. I disagree with some people, and made that known, but in no way was trying to offend or bait anyone.

I agree, you're not trolling anyone. (not sarcastic)

MisterB · Oct 20, 2009, 10:10 PM // 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

That's not the point. It is their game. They can ban you for whatever reason they want to.

The point is, they shouldn't try to piss too many of their customers off. Sure they have a right to ban anybody who has ever used SF if they wanted to. But the fact that that is in their power doesn't make it the right decision to make.

I expressed no opinion one way or another on this issue; I simply pointed out that the rules forbid this action, and that ANet have in fact announced the revised rules on the log in screen when they prompted their customers to accept the new terms in the EULA/RoC. ANet have in fact announced that match manipulation is against the rules; it just turns out that the announcement was a long one.

I don't have any opinion on what ANet's action should be; I simply don't care. HB and TA will be removed shortly anyway. I expect people using bots to facilitate resigning may be banned for that action. It remains to be seen what further action ANet will take towards those who participated in match manipulation.

Foe · Oct 20, 2009, 11:38 PM // 23:38

So wait, GG doesn't say anything about SD. Just that ta and hb are being removed. I dont play either anymore but its pretty funny they are gonna remove them just to keep pvers from farming keys?

OH NO RURIK DRAGONSTORM BOUGHT AN ASIAN MINPET WITH WITH ZKEYS HE DIDNT BUY ONLINE OR DUPE OR WHATEVER. GUILDWARS OVER.

People have been exploiting hb for the title since forever, no one cares about it, so wtf.

Leave hb and ta in until SD, let ppl RR, who cares.

Skyy High · Oct 20, 2009, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foe

So wait, GG doesn't say anything about SD. Just that ta and hb are being removed. I dont play either anymore but its pretty funny they are gonna remove them just to keep pvers from farming keys?

OH NO RURIK DRAGONSTORM BOUGHT AN ASIAN MINPET WITH WITH ZKEYS HE DIDNT BUY ONLINE OR DUPE OR WHATEVER. GUILDWARS OVER.

People have been exploiting hb for the title since forever, no one cares about it, so wtf.

Leave hb and ta in until SD, let ppl RR, who cares.

Goddammit...

Quote:

Eh, no, they definitely said they were removing the thing way before RR day became nearly as popular as it has been recently, and with good reason. This is not a case of ANet giving up on an arena because "they don't know how to fix RR day", this is ANet scrapping two mostly dead and/or unfun arenas in the hopes of consolidating the community and implementing a new semi-casual replacement PvP arena that people might actually enjoy playing.

HawkofStorms · Oct 20, 2009, 11:51 PM // 23:51

I know Skyy High. It's kinda sad that people can't even separate out HB from RR in their mind anymore. Kinda just shows how dead HB really was if people can't even contemplate actually PLAYING the thing.

HB isn't being removed due to RR (thus why they should be two separate threads and the OP should remove references to RR in his new edited original post and move them to the appropriate thread).

FREDtheDINOSAUR · Oct 20, 2009, 11:56 PM // 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

HB isn't being removed due to RR (thus why they should be two separate threads and the OP should remove references to RR in his new edited original post and move them to the appropriate thread).

Alright, I'll move it. Sorry, I'm still pretty new (I joined yesterday).

Martin Alvito · Oct 21, 2009, 12:27 AM // 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

Sure they have a right to ban anybody who has ever used SF if they wanted to. But the fact that that is in their power doesn't make it the right decision to make.

The ability to take an action doesn't imply the willingness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator Motoko

I'm sure ANet learned from the VoD abuse along with its removal and will continue to implement necessary changes to prevent the abuse of gameplay in any shape or form.

I can't tell whether you're serious, but I think you are.

ANet created the VoD abuse with the tournament system. Didn't make sense to abuse VoD in the ladder format. More wins faster in ladder play = good. Stalling until VoD = bad. I'd call [iQ] the first true abusers of VoD.

The AT system only made the abuse more widespread, despite concerted efforts by the devs to stop the abuse. The abuse was impossible to stop because teams simply got rewarded for playing a conservative, low variance game in single elimination play. Eliminate the most efficient conservative solution, and players substitute to the second-most efficient one, because you didn't alter their incentives. An infinitely repeating Whac-A-Mole game.

So the devs removed VoD, and that was an epic failure. So they altered the tiebreaker, and THAT got us to where we are with people not playing the game as intended.

I'd say ANet didn't learn a damn thing. Clearly the problem is the tournament format. Change it to a Swiss round-robin final after qualifying where the tiebreaker is total match time elapsed in wins, and nobody abuses VoD. The end.

How hard is this?