What is "Poofing" to Sirken?

[finalgrunt]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I mean is someone could break that feign with an AE in those ten seconds and get you screwed, but not if you drop prematurely.

So what is the exact scenario for this?

(let's think, without IP exemption)

A monk goes in LoS of an engaged dragon, FD and /q
Question is: why would a monk do this? Monk would obviously die from this.

From my point of view, anyone doing this, is only to cheat death through unconventional ways.

[quido]

Monk is unaggro, sees homeboy training Hosh who has 25 seconds until he has LoS to set off the AE. Monk feigns, /quits.

If the monk is out of the game in 20 seconds, he lives.

If the monk needs 30 seconds, his feign is broken by AE, and he's most likely dead or charmed and then dead.

Would the timer then be 2 minutes because he gained aggro after /quit? I'm curious how this works.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Monk is unaggro, sees homeboy training Hosh who has 25 seconds until he has LoS to set off the AE. Monk feigns, /quits.

If the monk is out of the game in 20 seconds, he lives.

If the monk needs 30 seconds, his feign is broken by AE, and he's most likely dead or charmed and then dead.

Would the timer then be 2 minutes because he gained aggro after /quit? I'm curious how this works.

The general timeout without an exemption is, what? 2 minutes? Obviously if everyone with an IP Exemption waited 2 minutes there'd be no issue ever.

However, I can see some scenarios where it's questionable if the staff condones poofing yourself by logging yourself back in and taking, say, 20 seconds instead of 2 minutes. If there's no threat, sure poofing by logging back into the same account is fine. But, from the above discussion, it seems that if you KNOW you are in danger you have to wait. Obviously, again, 2 minutes is 100% safe to ensure you don't break the rules. But where is the cutoff? Should everyone carry a stop watch incase they're possibly in danger?

However, what about situations where you're unsure whether or not you're in danger? What if someone takes only 20 seconds to reset and they were unaware that an opposing guild was bringing Hoshkar to say hi? From the poofer's point of view, he had no intent to abuse it, but the trainer (who is probably running FRAPS) is going to claim the poofer abused the exemption.

I understand this is an emerging rule, but I think the only realy solution will be to hardcode that ALL LD characters stay in game until the timer runes.

P.S. On live, in the early days, couldn't you LD and log back to the character without it ever leaving the world? I'm not sure when it was changed to the way it works here.

RELEVANT:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[quido]

They just need to rework the mechanic, imo, so everyone is held to the same cooldown. Whether that's 15 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, whatever, I think making it (and fast switching) tied to an exemption is kind of silly. I understand that it's simply setup that way, but maybe it's time for a revision.

[Metallikus]

This the root of the conversation:

Originally Posted by Susano [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We all suspected it, but we were asked to "Prove it" multiple times.

Here is proof.

TMO, known cheaters of p99 and all around assbags of the community.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="width:450px; height:366px;" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/3c_EVJTmsIQ?color2=FBE9EC&amp;version=3">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3c_EVJTmsIQ?color2=FBE9EC&amp;version=3" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
</object><div style="font-size: 0.8em"></div>


<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="width:450px; height:366px;" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/BlfM3t1yYEc?color2=FBE9EC&amp;version=3">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BlfM3t1yYEc?color2=FBE9EC&amp;version=3" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
</object><div style="font-size: 0.8em"></div>

I know VP is a no CS zone, but I feel this is a little over the top.

Why is aiuas (zeelot) allowed to circumvent server rules and policies?

Why does Sirken say "from now on I dont want to see any cheating" when the rules were already in place?
Why would this guy not receive the punishment deserved?
The rules are clearly written that abuse results in ban. THe fraps shows clear abuse. WHy no ban?

[quido]

maybe because sirken isn't dumb and knows lots of people across multiple guilds have abused this

glad to see the rules being straightened out - hopefully staff can continue to be pro-active with some positive changes

[Metallikus]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

maybe because sirken isn't dumb and knows lots of people across multiple guilds have abused this

glad to see the rules being straightened out - hopefully staff can continue to be pro-active with some positive changes

multiple guilds have done many things against the rules. Everytime they get caught, they are supposed to be dealt with according to the rules. Two wrongs dont make it right. There is evidence of abuse, deal out the appropriate punishment.

Raid guilds have been raid suspended many times. Many of the members have been suspended many times. Why all of a sudden when zeelot's character gets caught in the act, we have to have some big step back and be lenient and not punish the offender for the crime he was caught doing.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by Metallikus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

multiple guilds have done many things against the rules. Everytime they get caught, they are supposed to be dealt with according to the rules. Two wrongs dont make it right. There is evidence of abuse, deal out the appropriate punishment.

Raid guilds have been raid suspended many times. Many of the members have been suspended many times. Why all of a sudden when zeelot's character gets caught in the act, we have to have some big step back and be lenient and not punish the offender for the crime he was caught doing.

It's called ex post facto, "after the fact". The rule was not enforced previously, to start enforcing it out of the blue with no warning is not fair and unconstitutional. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The warning has been made, the GMs have come in and said it will be enforced, from this point forward be sure to report any you see and you can die a happy man knowing that GMs care.

[Metallikus]

Originally Posted by Ele [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's called ex post facto, "after the fact". The rule was not enforced previously, to start enforcing it out of the blue with no warning is not fair and unconstitutional. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The warning has been made, the GMs have come in and said it will be enforced, from this point forward be sure to report any you see and you can die a happy man knowing that GMs care.

by that logic, might as well two box or use show EQ or macroquest or RMT all day until it starts getting enforced right? because it is common knowledge that those arent being enforced - right?

how are we supposed to know what gets enforced if it is all hush hush when soemone gets caught?

[Metallikus]

the rules are written. just because someone doesnt get caught doing it, doesnt mean its ok to do it until soemone gets caught. follow the rules. if u dont, get punished, otherwise why have fucking rules.

we could jsut go around saying hey, no one got caught doing this bullshit random exploit. i might as well do it until someone gets caught with no repurcussions....