>Grebeny opinion
Ignored
https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/87...ality=lossless
Printable View
>Grebeny opinion
Ignored
https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/87...ality=lossless
Anti-cheat has been discussed on the forums before, and Shurrikhan says the biggest part out loud for everyone to hear provided they read it. If there's one thing I don't understand, it's some people's obsession with wanting an Anti-Cheat when it's been proven time and again that Anti-Cheats are worked around by the 3rd Party App developers to keep the program running like it's supposed to. Those other games that have anti-cheat have shown that they can even be undetected on a computer as well.
One of the main facets of Primal is how its raiding scene imposes a three-run rule on itself when reclearing. Either people know the fight, or basically they were carried by others' standards. Having that one thing stuck in another's mind as Shurri says is how stigmatization begins - by hyperfocusing on one person throughout the fight and potentially making the problems yourself for not paying attention. Aside from Primal PF strategies that are typically from video guides or diagrams, there is almost little to no communication that happens based on my experience - something that needs to be improved just within the community itself.
Context matters. The point, in the statements leading up to it, is that harassment is easy to verify, so they ban more frequently for that. ACT usage is not so easy to verify for them because they don't want to invade your privacy and install detection software to determine what else is running on your computer. He never said that they don't ban for ACT. He said that it's harder to prove. In that same interview, he also explicitly said not to use ACT. The reason the streamers are being banned for their use of the software is because they provided video evidence that they're using it, so SE was able to verify that they were breaking TOS without having to infect anyone with spyware. Regardless of how you misinterpreted previous statements, there's a big difference between, "We're looking the other way, so go for it," and "We're not going to invade your privacy to verify that you're not doing it, but please don't do it anyway because it's not allowed."
No. Players will find a way to use this to exclude others, even if it comes to the point of having to send screen shots of "private" parses via Discord to be let into the group.
Players will ALWAYS find a way to corrupt any system, no matter how well intentioned or seemingly harmless which eventually ends up in an arms race between devs and players. The only way to win that game is not to play.
"I need the power to stop you from doing something on your own computer, that slightly affects how you play the game. I need this power because if I don't have it, you *might* do something that would negatively impact me".
You -definitely- need to exert de jure control over me, because I *might* otherwise exert peer pressure over you.
That sounds like the lust of every authoritarian I've ever heard, babe.