Curse

Targren · Oct 27, 2008, 06:01 PM // 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

That is simply not possible. For every 'clear' and 'unambiguous' rule, there are ten ways to crawl around it without touching the line. There must be an ultimate 'whatever we find inappropriate' clause.

No, there should NOT be. That kind of corporate-friendly, customer-hostile crap is what lets them get away with contradicting themselves, permbanning a guy for using the G15 macros interactively (see here) in spite of being told by an ANet official that they were allowed.

If they don't want to say what is allowed and what is not, then let them come out and say "NO MACROS". That is unambiguous, explicit, and leaves no room for "corner cases" or "loopholes."

DreamWind · Oct 27, 2008, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Um, ArenaNet has right there in their EULA that you can't use 3rd party programs.

Which has been contradicted numerous times in numerous situations with numerous 3rd party programs by numerous Anet officials. Ok I am exagerrating somewhat but there is still evidence there. 3rd party programs of various kinds are still being used with no bans.

I'm just saying the line here is unclear, and banning people for this before the line was drawn was pretty ridiculous. The line still isn't completely drawn though, especially for people who don't keep up on this stuff. The fact that the bans have been reduced to 2 weeks is indication that Anet realizes they screwed up here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

I wasn't arguing for or against any point in this thread... I was giving information.

Fair enough.

tmakinen · Oct 27, 2008, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

That kind of corporate-friendly, customer-hostile crap is what lets them get away with contradicting themselves

Their property, their rules. You are free not to play.

Fril Estelin · Oct 27, 2008, 08:14 PM // 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

No, there should NOT be. That kind of corporate-friendly, customer-hostile crap is what lets them get away with contradicting themselves, permbanning a guy for using the G15 macros interactively (see here) in spite of being told by an ANet official that they were allowed.

If they don't want to say what is allowed and what is not, then let them come out and say "NO MACROS". That is unambiguous, explicit, and leaves no room for "corner cases" or "loopholes."

Due to the nature of software (and hardware too; this also includes "system software" such as the one provided with the G15 which can perform quite a lot of tricks), it is literaly impossible. What about hacked version of the OS or the network libraries that would modify that packets sent to the GW server in order to achieve a certain in-game effect? What about your internet router doing the trick? What about a programmable hardware that you'd add between your network card and the network cable? Are these "macros"?

As tmakinen said, produce a rule and there will be soon dozens of ways to bypass it, by software or simple social engineering. If what you're asking for was possible, the whole field of software engineering would be in a totally different state, meaning that "cheating" would have a clear-cut definition that no one can escape (and lawyers would have a much easier job).

jaximus · Oct 27, 2008, 09:08 PM // 21:08

would any of this be an issue if fff didnt exist? the ability for people to run that quest so quickly and efficiently to gain faction/money/xp ruins a lot. it provides too much money for the system too quickly and turns a title that takes time and effort to achieve more about who can cheat the system the best. sadly quests/cases like this exist so that bots are even a viable option.

what is the point of botting for a game? you should play it to enjoy it, not for any other reason. people that do this (anyone supporting macros/keyboard/whatever garbage people are doing) are hurting the game for everyone.

Lycan Nibbler · Oct 27, 2008, 09:09 PM // 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Due to the nature of software (and hardware too; this also includes "system software" such as the one provided with the G15 which can perform quite a lot of tricks), it is literaly impossible. What about hacked version of the OS or the network libraries that would modify that packets sent to the GW server in order to achieve a certain in-game effect? What about your internet router doing the trick? What about a programmable hardware that you'd add between your network card and the network cable? Are these "macros"?

I think these fall under the "use of 3rd party programs" in the EULA.

Targren · Oct 27, 2008, 09:29 PM // 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Their property, their rules. You are free not to play.

Then they're free to refund me my money.

That EULAs have made it possible to sell someone a good, and then unilaterally and capriciously deny them use of it, is a joke. It's like selling someone a car, then the next day coming back and taking the keys because they called your favorite politician a nasty name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frill

Due to the nature of software (and hardware too; this also includes "system software" such as the one provided with the G15 which can perform quite a lot of tricks), it is literaly impossible. What about hacked version of the OS or the network libraries that would modify that packets sent to the GW server in order to achieve a certain in-game effect? What about your internet router doing the trick? What about a programmable hardware that you'd add between your network card and the network cable? Are these "macros"?

They can be if explicitly defined as such. That's the key. Explicit definition. If you say a "macro" is something that performs more than one in-game action per individual keypress, or something that allows in-game actions to be completed without interaction from the player, etc... would cover ALL of those things.

Instead, they give you lazy lawyer boilerplate, and act on whims. Typical corporate crumminess, and I'm not giving them a pass for it.

Kyp Jade · Oct 27, 2008, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Then they're free to refund me my money.

That EULAs have made it possible to sell someone a good, and then unilaterally and capriciously deny them use of it, is a joke. It's like selling someone a car, then the next day coming back and taking the keys because they called your favorite politician a nasty name.

Actually, you just basically handed them money, and they said they would agree by a EULA, which is NOT a legal contract. But when you do in the EULA what you agreed you wouldnt do, and then complain when they terminate your service like they said they would, you complain.

And with the car thing, thats a legal contract.

Fril Estelin · Oct 27, 2008, 11:11 PM // 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

They can be if explicitly defined as such. That's the key. Explicit definition. If you say a "macro" is something that performs more than one in-game action per individual keypress, or something that allows in-game actions to be completed without interaction from the player, etc... would cover ALL of those things.

Instead, they give you lazy lawyer boilerplate, and act on whims. Typical corporate crumminess, and I'm not giving them a pass for it.

If all you're interested in is a "definition", as in a text of law, then yes it's perfect. But then, you'd have to be versed into computers to know how false this is (i.e., how easily it can be debunked in court), because the thing you mention ("something that performs more than one in-game action per individual keypress, or something that allows in-game actions to be completed without interaction from the player") cannot be attested by the GW client or the GW server in any sort of way at the moment.

I won't start discussing the technicalities of how the GW server can detect "macro-ing", but it's extremely ugly and Anet's announcement shows that it's very far from being exact. And the reason is hidden inside the examples I gave above: from the point of view of the GW client or the GW server, you can't make any difference between a device doing "stuff" for each "keypress" (so physically it's only a "keypress" but no one except the guy standing in front of the device can know that, because the device acts like a keyboard which sends complex signals to the OS, a bit like the G15 whose special buttons send signals to its dedicated software that works very close to the OS, and all that is very difficult to see for the GW client and server), or a proper bot. Both can theoretically be used for convenience (repeating a sequence of key strings) or botting (repeating a complex and repetitive behaviour, potentially with some kind of "intelligence"), the difference being of course in the complexity involved.

You could even completely defeat the purpose of your definition of "macro" by simply taking a bot and asking the botter to regularly interact with the program. A bit like saying that the bot program helps you, instead of letting him do the stuff. (FYI, what pro botters do is try to emulate human behaviours, but it's an arms race with the MMO company)

We even discussed on Guru the extreme case of a player behaving (constant repetitive action) as a bot! Of course, if you look at GW packets, it can't look like a computer, but it shows how useless such a definition would be, unless it has to come to court like the recent case that Blizzard won.

Hell Raiser · Oct 27, 2008, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Their property, their rules.

This.

I do agree with Anet's decision not to permaban these players. Several Anet employees have said that some certain macros are ok (ie G15). At least now those legitimate players will know not to use them anymore, and the ones who use bots (and will continue to) will get a permaban. I mean, Anet practically invited them to bot with such a grueling amount of time repeating the same thing over and over.

However, in the end, Anet can do whatever they want.

creelie · Oct 28, 2008, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Their property, their rules.

Thirded.

Though I do think a more appropriate punishment would have been setting their accounts' Luxon AND Kurzick faction back to 0. That would be hilarious.

Targren · Oct 28, 2008, 01:54 AM // 01:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyp Jade

Actually, you just basically handed them money, and they said they would agree by a EULA, which is NOT a legal contract. But when you do in the EULA what you agreed you wouldnt do, and then complain when they terminate your service like they said they would, you complain.

And with the car thing, thats a legal contract.

You might have a point if I could refuse the EULA and then get my money back for the software, but the software publishers have decided that they would not credit stores who allow returns of opened software.

They are having their cake and eating it too, and not all of us are programmed to fall in line with the proclamations of the corporate overlords without question.

Hell Raiser · Oct 28, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Put your tinfoil hat back on and get over your "corporate overlords" conspiracy. When you agreed to the EULA you agreed that you payed only for the rights to play the game, and that they could take those rights away at any time. It still belongs to them and they can do whatever they want with it, including deny you access. Don't like it? Don't buy games like GW.

Targren · Oct 28, 2008, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Raiser

Put your tinfoil hat back on and get over your "corporate overlords" conspiracy. When you agreed to the EULA you agreed that you payed only for the rights to play the game, and that they could take those rights away at any time. It still belongs to them and they can do whatever they want with it, including deny you access. Don't like it? Don't buy games like GW.

Cute trying to diminutive the issue with "tinfoil hat" talk. Too bad it's a simple matter of facts.

Oh, you mean when I walked into Gamestop, laid the game on the counter, and gave them my credit card, they gave me a copy of the Eula? See, here in the real world, I didn't get to see it until the game was opened, installed, and run, so my options were to accept the eula or... what, exactly?

Just because someone selling you something says something is true, doesn't mean it is. For ANet to start pulling this crap now is sad. I expected a smaller company to do right by its customers, instead of acting like EA.

fusa · Oct 28, 2008, 03:42 AM // 03:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

Cute trying to diminutive the issue with "tinfoil hat" talk. Too bad it's a simple matter of facts.

Oh, you mean when I walked into Gamestop, laid the game on the counter, and gave them my credit card, they gave me a copy of the Eula? See, here in the real world, I didn't get to see it until the game was opened, installed, and run, so my options were to accept the eula or... what, exactly?

Just because someone selling you something says something is true, doesn't mean it is. For ANet to start pulling this crap now is sad. I expected a smaller company to do right by its customers, instead of acting like EA.

Getting banned from Guild Wars is pretty much the same as being kicked out of a sporting event, or concert. If you act up, you're kicked out. When you login to their server you are on their property, and they can remove you whenever you want. EULA just lets you know how you should act.

Anet has been banning people for a lot longer than the recent bans, and hopefully will keep it up for the rest of the life of the game. They aren't acting like EA now, they act like every other software company. Even freeware written by one person require a user agree to a user agreement.

DreamWind · Oct 28, 2008, 05:57 AM // 05:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusa

Getting banned from Guild Wars is pretty much the same as being kicked out of a sporting event, or concert. If you act up, you're kicked out. When you login to their server you are on their property, and they can remove you whenever you want. EULA just lets you know how you should act.

I think what Targren is trying to say that everybody keeps missing is that we don't get to see the EULA until we have already paid for the game thus making us HAVE to accept it. We CAN'T deny the EULA even if we read it and think it is ridiculous.

The thing that some people are pissed off about though is that if we go to a sporting event we know that if we run out onto the field we will get thrown out...but in Guild Wars we don't know what the hell is right and wrong anymore. Anet in this case basically threw some people out of the sporting event for eating in the stands and we just now found out eating is a bannable offense. Now we have to wonder if drinking is too. Then we have to tell the entire world because nobody actually knows the complicated rules.

tmakinen · Oct 28, 2008, 07:24 AM // 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The thing that some people are pissed off about though is that if we go to a sporting event we know that if we run out onto the field we will get thrown out...but in Guild Wars we don't know what the hell is right and wrong anymore.

This is actually a decent analog, but not the way you apparently intended it. When you go to a sporting event you are not forced to sign an EULA either before or after you part with your money. There are rules and with luck they might even be posted on some public place. However, this is pretty incidental to the issue since people are expected to have common sense to decide what is permissible and what isn't.

When you lament that you don't know what is right and what bannable in GW it doesn't mean that the rules are ambiguous, it's just that you're lacking common sense. It is dead easy to avoid doing anything bannable. I have something around 5k hours of playtime on my belt (been too trepidating to check lately) and never, ever I have felt unsure about whether any of my in-game actions are bannable.

Then there is the final point that I would like to drive home: the rules are not there so that ANet could screw you whichever way the like. They are there to protect every player (you including) from unfair actions of other players. If you are on the right side of the fence, you should support ANet's attempts to make the playing field level for everybody and to banish those who are willing to take shortcuts to success. Online games where bots, 'sploits and cheats are allowed to go rampant are very soon failed games.

nasty_lord_666 · Oct 28, 2008, 08:18 AM // 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Targren

If they don't want to say what is allowed and what is not, then let them come out and say "NO MACROS". That is unambiguous, explicit, and leaves no room for "corner cases" or "loopholes."

Thats fine in theory, but how should they realize that? I mean even a doubleclick on a mousebutton is in fact a macro, you want to get banned for using a doubleclickbutton?

Quote:

Originally Posted by creelie

Though I do think a more appropriate punishment would have been setting their accounts' Luxon AND Kurzick faction back to 0. That would be hilarious.

i actually like the idea

and to be sure they're really getting in trouble, also set the points for the Guild to 0... The situation would probably resolve itself

Or there are suddendly a massive amount of 1-man guilds

cataphract · Oct 28, 2008, 08:47 AM // 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyp Jade

You forgot to mention how starcraft won gw when he got r15 hero because it was made to be 'unattainable'

I most certainly did not. Forgetting to mention something implies knowledge about it. Since I couldn't care less for HA grinders without life, there's nothing to forget about them.

SPURLUXE · Oct 28, 2008, 08:56 AM // 08:56

All the botters/macro users should be banned permanently.
botting is botting, macro is macro.