What is "Poofing" to Sirken? - Page 7

radditsu · #61 03-30-2013, 12:35 AM

Quote:

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

I think the issue is that guilds are currently competing with each other, and an escalation of arms and tactics is utterly inevitable. It stands to reason that if one guild is permitted to /q cycle within 20 seconds that the opposing force should desire it as well.

Further, some individuals are undoubtedly seeking to have others banned or punished for any number of reasons including both petty vendetta and deontological concerns. It's only logical to seek out the bounds of acceptable conduct.

Acceptable conduct would be to stop with the bullshit trains completely. But that's just like...my opinion man.

knix · #62 03-30-2013, 01:41 AM

Quote:

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

Personally I just don't like having to interpret vague language broadly to ensure I am safe from the whims of the perma ban.

/agree

Sirken i am so sad over this. I really need you to clarify.

I feel like i dont want to play,

eadric · #63 03-30-2013, 10:52 AM

Really? Just don't /exit when you have agro if you have an IP exemption. It's not that difficult, unless you are so dependent on exploiting this bug that you can't survive without it...

Socratic · #64 03-30-2013, 12:39 PM

No individual moral stance here is relevant. DA /q has been accepted on this server for a long time. Only now is it being limited, which is fine, but it's very unclear what they are trying to limit here with the threat of a ban.

It doesn't matter what any of us personally think about it. All that matters is what exactly they are trying to stop.

I joined a BDA group once leveling up. The first thing they asked me was if I had an exemption, and then we went on to talk about our mutual friend Eadric. Exploiters be damned!

**nilbog** · #65 03-30-2013, 12:41 PM

I spoke with Sirken about this and tested it in game. I had others test it in game. I then spoke to Rogean and we did further testing.

We have plans to isolate and correct the problem.

Until completed, heed Sirken's warning.

Quote:

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

Sirken i am so sad over this. I really need you to clarify.

=

Quote:

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

Simply put it is using any method available (IP exemption, MQ insta camps, etc) in order to force your character immediately out of game and skipping the step of being LD or camping.

If you're playing the game normally, this will not affect you. If you are going out of your way to abuse these mechanics, you have been warned.

eadric · #66 03-30-2013, 09:50 PM

Quote:

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

No individual moral stance here is relevant. DA /q has been accepted on this server for a long time. Only now is it being limited, which is fine, but it's very unclear what they are trying to limit here with the threat of a ban.

It doesn't matter what any of us personally think about it. All that matters is what exactly they are trying to stop.

I joined a BDA group once leveling up. The first thing they asked me was if I had an exemption, and then we went on to talk about our mutual friend Eadric. Exploiters be damned!

This isn't an anti-TMO thing for me. Soc you are an old friend and one of the best players/raid leaders I've ever played with. Knix is an old friend as well. I'm only speaking up here because I don't think you guys are being entirely honest with yourselves about this situation. Yes, this issue has long been a 'grey' area that many players from many guilds took advantage of to save them from a death, or to speed recovery from a wipe in sky, and it stayed under the radar for the most part.

Aiaus just changed that forever in VP last week. Blame him, not the GMs, if you are unhappy. They have been quite lenient in my view in only revoking his IP exemption. Now isn't the time to try rule-lawyering the GMs to death, it's a time for anyone who has been in the habit of doing this to lay low and purposefully avoid /exiting with agro until they patch the fix in. Maybe it's not quite as simple as that in the VP train wars, but at the very least make sure you aren't doing what Aiaus was doing.

Socratic · #67 03-31-2013, 06:34 AM

I'm not unhappy at all. I just don't like vague language accompanying the threat of a ban. Nilbog's post isn't as clear as I would like, but it will have to do.

Maybe people who /q and log back in after being LD for 10 seconds are fine? Maybe they aren't... nobody knows! I guess it's all about what your intentions are, and whether those intentions are to "abuse these mechanics".

So... #2 (done with the intention of dropping aggro)?

Kagatob · #68 03-31-2013, 06:44 AM

It's obvious who the rules lawyers are in this thread, wanting as much clarity as possible so they can find out the exact line they can attempt to exploit to without worrying about a ban.

Ele · #69 03-31-2013, 07:32 AM

Quote:

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

It's obvious who the rules lawyers are in this thread, wanting as much clarity as possible so they can find out the exact line they can attempt to exploit to without worrying about a ban.

That wouldn't be exploiting then would it?

Kagatob · #70 04-01-2013, 04:59 AM

Quote:

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

That wouldn't be exploiting then would it?

In the same sense that going over the speed limit and breaking the law but not breaking it enough for someone to enforce said law. Yes it wouldn't be exploiting, it'd only be 'exploiting'.