yeah.. that's another thing I'm at odds with over their announcement. Not like chigoes can't be found elsewhere in the game for the purpose of completing trials. Sure, it may not be as optimal elsewhere if you would benefit from Grauberg's weather patterns. But, it's not like you can't work on the trials somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
But....it got reported, so now SE is poking around now. I just hope they don't overreact like they so often do.
Attacking Monsters with an Avatar While Being AFK.
Printable View
-
04-30-2012, 12:46 PMRAIST
-
04-30-2012, 02:21 PMAlhanelem
what it all comes down to is a bunch of myriad random factors came together along with the stars and planets aligning to make something that normally isn't much of an issue become one.
-
04-30-2012, 03:03 PMBabekekePlease don't tell SE about this, but apparently some people are actually going AFK whilst they leech in FC parties, getting exp, cruor, lights, time and the drops from the treasure....Quote:
Originally Posted by Duzell
...shhh! ;p -
04-30-2012, 03:18 PMSpankWustlerhttp://www.thefreefinancialadvisor.c...gauri_gasp.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Babekeke
-
04-30-2012, 03:34 PMYinnythThis is another point you and I differ on, apprantly. I believe it's better to kick the balls of 1% of all criminals than to kick the balls of all people.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAIST
If chigoes are attractive, any player can profit off that, not just afk players. Attempting to ban cheaters is better than successfully nerfing chigoes for ALL players.
"Well, 51% of people who did Nyzul were using cheater tools, so we're shutting down Nyzul for 100% of people." I'm sorry for beating the dead horse on Nyzul, but it's the only other thing I can think of where people consistantly cheat. -
04-30-2012, 09:47 PMhikoit's not absentee play because they interact with nothing in game.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAIST
The cleaver IS playing.
smn case: NOBODY is playing but mob are killed -
04-30-2012, 11:39 PMRAISTYou are in a way reinforcing some important points. You call them cheating. Why are they cheating? Is it because they are doing nothing to earn their rewards while AFK? That applies to afk leechers in abyssea as well. Even worse, there are people charging gil to allow them to afk leech. Yet, there are some defending the abyssea activity when they are exploiting game design in a very similar fashion. If one is cheating by advancing with no effort, than so are the others. One is just more direct than the other--but at their core, they are both absentee play. If you want to get really loose with it, the same could be applied to afk bazaars--they are parked in an area and gaining rewards for doing nothing. It all depends on how loosely or rigidly you want to apply absentee rules to each situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yinnyth
Again, the issue always comes back to the monopolization factor. If spawns were still being left available for others to use, then there wouldn't be an issue--it would have never been reported. That's why you don't see them making announcements about people who are essentially controlling other camps--there is usually something left for others to work with, or there is simply somewhere else they can go. As it was though, all spawns in this one area were being controlled by a small group of people.
This situation could have been happening with any job, not just SMN. It happened because the opportunity existed for high rewards with minimal (or no) effort involved. So long as that opportunity exists and people wish to take advantage of it, there will be a potential problem that the STF will have to continually monitor. Depending on whether it persists as a problem and to what degree they have to keep throwing resources at it to contain it--SE may decide to take more aggressive action and recode something. That is what is under fire--whether SE is going to attack just SMN, or do something to prevent any other job from exploiting these targets. So yes, if SE is going to take more aggressive action and actually alter game code, then it needs to be something that indeed DOES affect everyone that may want to explooit these camps. Otherwise you may not be fixing the problem, but just be transferring it to another group of players. -
05-01-2012, 12:18 AMRAISTThink you may be kinda countering your own argument there.Quote:
Originally Posted by hiko
Cleaver does the killing with no action taken by an afk player---afk player receives rewards for doing nothing.
Avatar does the killing with no action taken by an afk player---afk player receives rewards for doing nothing.
In one scenario, a different player is actively doing the killing while in the other it is the player's pet.
In both scenarios, the afk player is still doing nothing and getting rewarded. It's like pronouncing Pecan as either Pea-can or Pea-kahn...both refer to the same nut. But does the afk leecher get reported? No, because the absentee play in this scenario is generally accepted by everyone, probably in large part because they want to take advantage of it too. however, in this particular incident, the activity was locking people out---not because they were afk, but because they had siezed control of all the camps.
So, you see, the problem is not so much the absenteeism---it is more with the actions of a handful of players taking over an area and locking others out from participation. This is not the case in the Cleave party--the alliance/party agrees on the terms, some in fact may have even paid for the opportunity to leech. AFK play has been pretty much accepted now because of the whole abyssea/GoV/FoV situation--but if you are running an entire area and preventing others from advancing a trial, then the call goes out "Houston, we have a problem...".
Thus, this behavior was caught by SE and flagged as unacceptable because they were monopolizing camps people wanted for their own purpose. Otherwise, this likely would have never been reported. It wasn't because of SMN auto-attack, nor AFK play. The camps are being taken over because of specific aspects of the mobs at those camps, and preventing others from using them. Were it not for them being a good target for trials, probably no one would have cared (unless it was proven to be disrupting the economy or something, but...that's a different animal there). -
05-01-2012, 01:52 AMYinnythNo, it's because what they're doing is against the user agreement, under what was formerly the absentee play clause, but is now the botting and cheating clause which is frustratingly vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAIST
No, it doesn't, because leeching isn't against the rules. Not yet anyways, but SE is allowed to interpret the rules any way they see fit. They started going after afk SMNs killing chigoes, so that's definately against their rules. They have yet to ban a single leecher.Quote:
That applies to afk leechers in abyssea as well.
They aren't advancing with no effort. True, they don't put any effort into it themselves, but someone else is putting forth the effort to level these people. The exp is a gift or a trade. The rules are vague enough that you could interpret them to mean that leeching is a cheat, yes. But since SE does the banning, their interpretation is more important than ours.Quote:
Yet, there are some defending the abyssea activity when they are exploiting game design in a very similar fashion. If one is cheating by advancing with no effort, than so are the others.
-
05-01-2012, 02:06 AMYinnythOh, now it all makes sense. You think an avatar is the same as a player who is currently at their keyboard. You think that if it's ok for one player to do work and to share the spoils of their work with afk people, then it's ok for an avatar to do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAIST
Pets are an extension of your character. If you're afk, your pet is afk. Yes, SMN pets act different than other pets because they automatically attempt to defend you from aggro. This should not cause a problem with absentee play because all players are capable of seeking a safe place to afk, or to log out.