You're a Disgrace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICountFrom0

I'm in both groups.

Hardline antimod.
Hate the shite netcode.

We do exist.

---

Calm down mr FFXIV Amish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormpeaks

Yeah let's put facial brands on people that dont raid as well, same for people that do ERP right ? Also for people that only do PF and dont have a static

Let's just start putting facial brands on everyone, that seems like an EXTRA healthy way to do things. /s

the hell is wrong with you ? are you actually out of your mind ? What a completely unhinged thing to say

---

Don't want a facial brand? Don't use tools or mod the game.

The real toxicity is this cancerous mindset of "I can ignore any rules or laws I want so long as I can make up an excuse." Because the people doing it in games also do the same thing outside of games as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

Don't want a facial brand? Don't use tools or mod the game.

The real toxicity is this cancerous mindset of "I can ignore any rules or laws I want so long as I can make up an excuse." Because the people doing it in games also do the same thing outside of games as well.

---

or how about we dont put facial brands on random people because we disagree about what they do ?

yeah that sounds better

get help

what is wrong with you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

Don't want a facial brand? Don't use tools or mod the game.

The real toxicity is this cancerous mindset of "I can ignore any rules or laws I want so long as I can make up an excuse." Because the people doing it in games also do the same thing outside of games as well.

---

Your idea would straight up allow the use of mods. Crazy how pro modding you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

Because the people doing it in games also do the same thing outside of games as well.

---

What does this even mean?

Can someone please sign me up for an irl BIBO? My 40 year old body could really use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AluminumSiren

What does this even mean?

Can someone please sign me up for an irl BIBO? My 40 year old body could really use it.

---

It means if you put on a hat you go straight to jail. /s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AluminumSiren

What does this even mean?

Can someone please sign me up for an irl BIBO? My 40 year old body could really use it.

---

They're a bit extreme and make no sense but are we really just going to ignore the fact that you clipped that out of context?

Full quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

Don't want a facial brand? Don't use tools or mod the game.

The real toxicity is this cancerous mindset of "I can ignore any rules or laws I want so long as I can make up an excuse." Because the people doing it in games also do the same thing outside of games as well.

---

They're not entirely wrong. Life sucks. There's a bunch of people that validate breaking hard rules where no flexibility should be considered. The facial brand thing is entirely memeable though.

I cant believe all the ppl to defend mods and cheating, especially on online stuff... there are rules, they are set, you agree or you leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

They're a bit extreme and make no sense but are we really just going to ignore the fact that you clipped that out of context?

---

Because the full context isn't needed? They asked what one specific line meant.

Not everything needs to have a hidden meaning.
I swear most of your posts I see you have to finish it with accusing another poster of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuroka

I cant believe all the ppl to defend mods and cheating, especially on online stuff... there are rules, they are set, you agree or you leave.

---

It's the mindset that has overtaken the game. Like I said in my other thread about botting, if you aren't using them you're just putting yourself at a disadvantage. Square essentially gives you their approval to use whatever 3rd party addon you want as long as you don't flaunt it. Telehacks are so useful to win fall guys. You won't be banned either. Why run 100s of times when you can run 100 times telehacking to the end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

Because the full context isn't needed? They asked what one specific line meant.

Not everything needs to have a hidden meaning.
I swear most of your posts I see you have to finish it with accusing another poster of something.

---

I didn't.

It's funny that you're doing literally the same thing I was pointing out by clipping the quote and starting an argument over what should be basically a non-issue. It's like you live here on the forums for the sake of being contrarian.

Also, they asked what one specific line meant while removing the context that gave it meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

They're a bit extreme and make no sense but are we really just going to ignore the fact that you clipped that out of context?

Full quote:



They're not entirely wrong. Life sucks. There's a bunch of people that validate breaking hard rules where no flexibility should be considered. The facial brand thing is entirely memeable though.

---

The entire “No flexibility” it’s very highly debatable lol

It’s a silly argument because it sounds silly. Gives the vibe that a modder shot their cat and now they have a death grudge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

I didn't. You're just biased against me.

It's funny that you're doing literally the same thing I was pointing out by clipping the quote and starting an argument over what should be basically a non-issue. It's like you live here on the forums for the sake of being contrarian.

---

Someone asking a question for clarification is what you were "pointing out". You're constantly assuming what people mean.

And yes I did do that. At least I don't deny what I do. I'm calling you out for your stupid pointless passive aggressive comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

Someone asking a question for clarification is what you were "pointing out". You're constantly assuming what people mean.

And yes I did do that. At least I don't deny what I do. I'm calling you out for your stupid pointless passive aggressive comments.

---

What I pointed out was that the answer to that person's question was clipped out of the quote. Like there's a lot they could've responded to considering their idea of facial brands or whatever for being just bad and instead they went for anything besides that.

Anyways, would you like to make any more admissions? You've acknowledged that you look for pointless arguments on the forum. You've acknowledged that you intentionally look for my posts, and you've acknowledged that you're being a hypocrite by making accusations against me for things I haven't really done. Is there anything else to add to the list? Do you feel validated? Do you feel better about yourself?

Sorry on the double post. On mobile and dunno how to edit.

@nekomatamata
The fact you say I'm bias against you supports my point. As far as I'm aware of, I've never interacted with you. What bias do I have against you exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

Sorry on the double post. On mobile and dunno how to edit.

@nekomatamata
The fact you say I'm bias against you supports my point. As far as I'm aware of, I've never interacted with you. What bias do I have against you exactly?

---

You've quoted me multiple times. You've even admitted right here that you are frequently on the look out for my posts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

Because the full context isn't needed? They asked what one specific line meant.

Not everything needs to have a hidden meaning.
I swear most of your posts I see you have to finish it with accusing another poster of something.

---

This either means that you're making a generalization/assumption about all of my posts, or that you have followed my posting around and have made that judgement accusation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

You've quoted me multiple times. You've even admitted right here that you are frequently on the look out for my posts:



This either means that you're making a generalization/assumption about all of my posts, or that you have followed my posting around and have made that judgement accusation.

---

I've noticed 3 posts today in threads I just so happened to be reading where you did the same thing.

When did I admit to being on the lookout for your posts? And never mind that last comment before where you assume everything about me oh so wrong.

If you do nothing but assume the position of someone who is accusing you of assuming. . . I don't even need to finish that sentence.

LMAO I was just re reading the thread and I never even noticed Neko was the one I made the comment about sounding like a Karen and who pooped in their cereal XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

They're a bit extreme and make no sense but are we really just going to ignore the fact that you clipped that out of context?

Full quote:



They're not entirely wrong. Life sucks. There's a bunch of people that validate breaking hard rules where no flexibility should be considered. The facial brand thing is entirely memeable though.

---

Their reactions honestly just make it look like a more effective method of getting people to follow the ToS than actual bans. They're apparently terrified over the aspect of everyone else in game seeing proof. Sure doing it will just inevitably result in a modder making a mod to hide the brand on your own screen. It said mod wouldn't stop everyone else from seeing it tho and knowing you ran something on your client you shouldn't have.

Let's look at the checklist they got going so far...

Direct attacks and insults.
Attempt at hiding behind the victim card.
Attempting to make gray areas in a black or white situation.
Attempts at placing incorrect meaning to statements in a lame attempt to discredit the poster.

Sorry kiddos. The only thing you've been doing is openly displaying your lack of character on a forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simoaak

If youa've used TOS breaking addons or directly cheated for the Fall Guys event, I hope you get banned. I hope everyone knows it. I hope you are shamed for the rest of your entire life.

---

a massive amount of ultimate raiders use cheating addons, and mechanic minimaps, overlay icons to tell you to do X, or a robot to announce how to do a mechanic to you. They rarely get caught sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

Can we at least acknowledge that there's a huge difference between using an addon to change how your glam looks or add in a timer for your garden, versus allowing you to cheat at raids or a PvP event?

---

No. Both are third-party tools and both are disallowed by the ToS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seymour_Rainecourt

No. Both are third-party tools and both are disallowed by the ToS.

---

Wearing hats on viera is the same as cheating in fall guys, got it. /s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

Wearing hats on viera is the same as cheating in fall guys, got it. /s

---

I can believe that someone thinks mods like that are 'illegal'. I remember some people saying that using mods in Skyrim was cheating, even if the mods made the game significantly harder.

https://media.tenor.com/Fg7Jrii-17kA...-wait-what.gif

People are weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadane

I feel people who use TOS breaking addons for anything, not just fall guys, should be shamed. And banned of course.




Absolutely not.
Play with the same limitations a PS5 player has. If you want a timer, use some non-integrated app. A cellphone. A web page.
If you don't like how your glam looks, get better glam and/or taste.

If you are giving yourself a different experience than a vanilla player I will not be shedding tears if you lose your characters. One day SE will step up and pull the trigger. Do you want to lose years of your time for that?

---

You've been here a long time. You should know by now that SE will not do anything in any meaningful way.
FFXI Windower came out in 2003. The same discussions were had in the forums back then. Windower is a key component in playing XI today.

I too dream of the day when vanilla will be enough for everyone, but be realistic. SE doesn't care. They pretend to care to appease the gamer police. They only really care about $$$. Literally 20 years has shown us that.

Difficulty mods in single player games are more like homebrew rules in board games; sure it's not how you're technically supposed to play, but who actually cares? As long as everyone at the table agrees to those rules, there's no cheating taking place. The good part about difficulty mods in single player games is you only need one person to consent to that agreement, the only time it gets murky is when things like achievements/trophies get involved, but that's a separate issue (and honestly, I don't usually care about those, I'm fine with having those disabled when I mod my games).

Online games of course are a separate problem, the only time a difficulty mod is acceptable is when it's on a separate server, which is usually only allowed for games where devs are okay with separate servers.

Anyway; who cares if someone wants to use visual mods or superfluous graphical changes? Who cares if someone wants chat bubbles clogging up their screen? These things, as far as I'm concerned, don't constitute cheating, it's either purely visual, or relaying the same information that you already have in the HUD.

I can agree with going after legitimate cheaters, but someone wanting a plugin that lets them change their minimap to a compass, lets them hide their hotbars when they're not in combat, or wants to have a prettier dress than normal, is hardly what I'd call cheating. Against ToS sure, that can't be disputed, but it's not cheating, and going on a witchhunt when most people who use these things tend to keep it to themselves doesn't really help anyone. Those who don't keep it to themselves and become a nuisance? Sure, give them a slap on the wrist and a 7-day ban or so. Permanent if it's continuous. Anyone who also bars people from entering parties because they won't use certain addons should also be discouraged, and a GM should intervene in those situations and hand out warnings.

Instead, go after people who manipulate character position beyond natural movement (RMT style teleports), who ignore collision detection, who manipulate the camera beyond the games usual boundaries, etc. Go after people who automate their character in combat and crafting without any player input (macros at least require you being there to press them again). Go after people who engage in RMT. Those are legitimate cheaters that should be punished, not someone who wanted a chat command for teleporting or wanted a hat on their bunny.

I'm still just saying that none of this would be an issue if the game was client side and we had better server tick rates. Ban all the mods, we're left with the core problem that people are cheating against.
Fix. The. Server. Issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strawberrycake

I'm still just saying that none of this would be an issue if the game was client side and we had better server tick rates. Ban all the mods, we're left with the core problem that people are cheating against.
Fix. The. Server. Issues.

---

That... doesn't make sense. It's the other way around, the server is harder to manipulate than the client, there's a reason any client-server related programming has the mantra of "don't trust the client".

https://security.stackexchange.com/q...ust-the-client

I'll blame Square for many things in their netcode, but making sure that the client doesn't have total control isn't one of them, it's the thing that's preventing even bigger cheats.

Unless you mean things like letting the client having a bit more control over things like say, animation lock, where the server would authenticate if it's valid anyway, then I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDustyOne

That... doesn't make sense. It's the other way around, the server is harder to manipulate than the client, there's a reason any client-server related programming has the mantra of "don't trust the client".

https://security.stackexchange.com/q...ust-the-client

I'll blame Square for many things in their netcode, but making sure that the client doesn't have total control isn't one of them, it's the thing that's preventing even bigger cheats.

Unless you mean things like letting the client having a bit more control over things like say, animation lock, where the server would authenticate if it's valid anyway, then I agree.

---

Nah just less of a load for them to handle plain and simple. The servers are handling the game, saving all of our character prog moment to moment and everything inbetween. If we handle the bulk the servers just handle the data. Bam more resource on how servers handle player positioning and making sure it's mor eor less accurate. then it's on you if you have bad internet.

This ofc is more of a working with what we have solution as buying more servers isn't exactly the best answer.

Again, that requires a lot of trust in player clients that whatever information they're sending to the servers is legitimate, and if the server has to authenticate it anyway, then no load was saved.

I don't have access to their servers, so I can't speak on how they programmed the game server-side, but it's better to refactor and make sure it can authenticate more efficiently, rather than putting trust in the client to give legitimate info. The plugins the game has are all client-side and don't typically interact with the servers. Put the entire game "client-side" and suddenly those plugins have access to everything and can just send any illegitimate data they want, which means the server would not only have to authenticate it anyway, but now has to spend more time undoing loads of bunk data (and also has to receive more data at once, increasing bandwidth).

Imagine if the game client did all the damage calculations itself, including the high rolls and crit rates. A cheater then goes in and modifies that client with a plugin to let him override that damage value with one of their own, like say, 9999999 damage with every hit. Well we can't have that, so the server now authenticates it and says no you have to use this calculation, which it needs to do the calculation itself to discover that anyway. Okay, but the calculation also involves a random multiplier at the end (which simulates high/low rolls), so as long as the number we send is within the random threshold, we can always high roll and the server can't tell unless it ignores the client (i.e. doesn't trust it) and does the random multiplier itself. If it's ultimately going to do it anyway, don't bother getting that data from the client, it only increases the bandwidth needed between the server and client.

The better solution is to just not let the client handle too much and let the server handle the damage calculations. Some things we already have to be trusting of the client, like player position, physics collisions, and that's usually where we have the biggest cheating problems; zoomhacks, speedhacks, camera hacks (the server never has our camera data), wallhacks. Making the entire game like that is a recipe for disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDustyOne

Again, that requires a lot of trust in player clients that whatever information they're sending to the servers is legitimate, and if the server has to authenticate it anyway, then no load was saved.

I don't have access to their servers, so I can't speak on how they programmed the game server-side, but it's better to refactor and make sure it can authenticate more efficiently, rather than putting trust in the client to give legitimate info. The plugins the game has are all client-side and don't typically interact with the servers. Put the entire game "client-side" and suddenly those plugins have access to everything and can just send any illegitimate data they want, which means the server would not only have to authenticate it anyway, but now has to spend more time undoing loads of bunk data (and also has to receive more data at once, increasing bandwidth).

Imagine if the game client did all the damage calculations itself, including the high rolls and crit rates. A cheater then goes in and modifies that client with a plugin to let him override that damage value with one of their own, like say, 9999999 damage with every hit. Well we can't have that, so the server now authenticates it and says no you have to use this calculation, which it needs to do the calculation itself to discover that anyway. Okay, but the calculation also involves a random multiplier at the end (which simulates high/low rolls), so as long as the number we send is within the random threshold, we can always high roll and the server can't tell unless it ignores the client (i.e. doesn't trust it) and does the random multiplier itself. If it's ultimately going to do it anyway, don't bother getting that data from the client, it only increases the bandwidth needed between the server and client.

The better solution is to just not let the client handle too much and let the server handle the damage calculations. Some things we already have to be trusting of the client, like player position, physics collisions, and that's usually where we have the biggest cheating problems; zoomhacks, speedhacks, camera hacks (the server never has our camera data), wallhacks. Making the entire game like that is a recipe for disaster.

---

It's already liek that, people already datamine, it;s not hard, people already cheat, zoom hack, wall hack, etc. This has been proven to literally not be a wall they cannot break down.

I know, I used those examples as things we have because those are the areas where the server trusts the client. The wall they haven't broken is the server, so moving server-side programming to the client now gives a paper wall they can break down easier. Your solution would make the cheating worse, not better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDustyOne

I know, I used those examples as things we have because those are the areas where the server trusts the client. The wall they haven't broken is the server, so moving server-side programming to the client now gives a paper wall they can break down easier. Your solution would make the cheating worse, not better.

---

This brings me to my favorite part of the situation, More Active Enforcement now, no more Vague TOS that allows Yoshida to play nicely with all the TOS breakers. It's been a thing for years now, don't ask, don't tell. You can use your tools so long as you stay quiet and don't adversely affect others, now LOVE to play their little silent game as well and quietly ban obvious offenders. But a more Outright more make an example of people approach would quash it all in one go. Putting people on Display while making moves to to lessen your own load and Banning all the very much Obvious offenders sends a msg, suddenly you see large swaths of players going poof. The game runs better and bam we all win.

Stay Dusty My Friend.

Enforcement is nice and all, and I agree with that, but that's a separate issue. If you open the floodgates on the client to cheating, then no GM force will be able to stop the flood. Make the server secure and don't trust the client, then whatever cheats that do crop up should be quickly quashed from a much smaller GM force than would be needed if the server was way too trusting.

Also a vague TOS is 100% better over a specific one. Once people know exactly what they can't do then it turns into creating loopholes around that.

This is 100% a problem that is caused by developer choices. Are they aware of the cheating? Yes. Do the devs continue to make rewards that specifically reward cheating anyways? Yes. They could have easily made the title based on rounds played, or just make it to the final round so 8/24 get credit, and instead they chose to tie it into wins in a game mode that only 1 out of 24 can win. This directly rewards those that cheat and was absolutely an awful dev decision knowing full well how rampant cheating is. It's that same decision making that ruined ranked CC due to cheaters and win traders claiming top 100 placement rewards. Any form of PvP should be heavily tracked period. Failure to do so is how you end up with... this lol. Every round becomes a question of "Did they actually beat me fairly or are they using an addon to get an unfair advantage? If they are using an addon then why am I even playing this garbage uphill battle?" It just breeds hatred in the community and again... it's 100% the devs fault. Either ban the cheaters or stop adding rewards that encourage the cheating if you are not going to ban them.

This is coming from someone who couldn't care less about the title btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDustyOne

I know, I used those examples as things we have because those are the areas where the server trusts the client. The wall they haven't broken is the server, so moving server-side programming to the client now gives a paper wall they can break down easier. Your solution would make the cheating worse, not better.

---

Game netcode never authenticates every action the client makes. It would be a completely laggy mess with unresponsiveness and desync/rubber banding. The netcode has to make a compromise between what the server should authenticate and what the client handles for a comfortable experience. This also has less to do with the server tickrate, and more with latency to the server. There's a reason why many korean mmos that get ported to the west have terrible pvp or multiplayer experience, and it's because the game was designed in Korea or Japan where the ping is <20ms because their regions are small and the internet infrastructure is very developed. This is why a game that plays smoothly in those regions plays like trash in NA because of excessive server checks with bad ping. I agree that FFXIV needs more server checks in many areas, but given that they're too cheap to even invest time/money in a higher server tickrate, that seems unlikely. The real solution is to implement client-side anticheat so that the client is protected from memory manipulation, like literally every other live game service in existence. For some reason, the ffixiv community is up and arms about it to a point that it weirds me out. Something something root access something something my parsers and mods. *shrug* Also, you talked about certain addons like visual mods being fine. The problem with that, other than opening a ugly can of worms for squeenix to maintain and check what mods are whitelisted, is that from an anticheat perspective it doesn't really distinguish between them, to my knowledge, bc I'm not very familiar with this area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thurmnmurmn

I've noticed 3 posts today in threads I just so happened to be reading where you did the same thing.

When did I admit to being on the lookout for your posts? And never mind that last comment before where you assume everything about me oh so wrong.

If you do nothing but assume the position of someone who is accusing you of assuming. . . I don't even need to finish that sentence.

---

So I'm going to start off by saying I can't prove you quoting me repeatedly because there's a suspicious amount of deleted posts on your end, and despite how close they are to mine and how I remember then that's not significant proof. I didn't take screenshots, nor are the threads backed up anywhere else. It's actually saddening to realize that it's something I'd have to do at this point too.

There's a handful of assumptions on my part and I'm willing to admit it. You never outright said you were looking for my posts, and I'm sure there's other things. It sure feels like it, but you never said it so that's whatever. There's plenty on your side though, and you've admitted that you come to the forums for the sake of being contrarian.

When you act the way that you do then people get tired of it, the lines blur and people assume that you're acting in bad faith. There's a reason I've needed multiple forum breaks when the likes of yourself, Stormpeaks and others have repeatedly made these forums and the discussions within them into more of a war where you attempt to tire out, irritate and force others in the conversations to submit and quit, rather than having a discussion in good faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

Wearing hats on viera is the same as cheating in fall guys, got it. /s

---

Oh no, not at all.

Players actually asked for hats on Viera.

I wonder why, that SE does not enforce the use of their own launcher, it will fix alot of problems, it is not like cosmetic addons is bad, however when it is actual game changing features and more to it such as walking underground teleporting around anywhere on the map, then there is a problem.

Also if all the Bard Bot Bands is worried for a change to forced launcher, then SE could just permit multiboxing with passive gain, and since it would be on their own software, they can strike directly hard onto cheaters as well, og bots going for the goldselling market alone due to what could permit to script for in it.

It is bad that SE allow the use of third party launchers as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

I wonder why, that SE does not enforce the use of their own launcher, it will fix alot of problems, it is not like cosmetic addons is bad, however when it is actual game changing features and more to it such as walking underground teleporting around anywhere on the map, then there is a problem.

Also if all the Bard Bot Bands is worried for a change to forced launcher, then SE could just permit multiboxing with passive gain, and since it would be on their own software, they can strike directly hard onto cheaters as well, og bots going for the goldselling market alone due to what could permit to script for in it.

It is bad that SE allow the use of third party launchers as it is.

---

Funnily enough none of your examples actually apply to the custom launcher. Cheat tools to teleport require more than just client-side manipulation which, after a cursory glance, the launcher can't do and the bard player is an entirely standalone tool.
So enforcing the default SE launcher would fix neither the more blatant cheating, the kind that bots under the ground use, nor the bard bot bands.