What is "Poofing" to Sirken?

[Socratic]

1. Read in the most broad sense "poofing" could refer to logging into the server before your character has been automatically dropped, thus forcing that character out of game. Basically if you have an ip exemption and legitimately LD you would have no way of knowing when you could log back into the server without being potentially banned unless someone in game could tell you once your character had dropped.

2. Read another way "poofing" could specifically refer to logging into the server within a certain amount of time after going LD with aggro to try to drop that aggro (still a somewhat unclear judgment call, how much time? was it intentional?). Perhaps dropping from world within 30s of going LD? I really don't know.

3. Read in the most narrow sense "poofing" could refer to using a second client to instantly leave the game without going LD at all (I think this is what prompted this response in the first place). If read in this way it would allow DA /q to be useable but limit players by requiring DA otherwise you're likely to die trying.

Currently I'm reading this in the most broad sense #1, because I would rather be careful and avoid months of work being crushed by the ban hammer, but I'd love some clarification.

[maverixdamighty]

1. Read in the most broad sense "poofing" could refer to logging into the server before your character has been automatically dropped, thus forcing that character out of game. Basically if you have an ip exemption and legitimately LD you would have no way of knowing when you could log back into the server without being potentially banned unless someone in game could tell you once your character had dropped.

2. Read another way "poofing" could specifically refer to logging into the server within a certain amount of time after going LD with aggro to try to drop that aggro (still a somewhat unclear judgment call, how much time? was it intentional?). Perhaps dropping from world within 30s of going LD? I really don't know.

3. Read in the most narrow sense "poofing" could refer to using a second client to instantly leave the game without going LD at all (I think this is what prompted this response in the first place). If read in this way it would allow DA /q to be useable but limit players by requiring DA otherwise you're likely to die trying.

Currently I'm reading this in the most broad sense #1, because I would rather be careful and avoid months of work being crushed by the ban hammer, but I'd love some clarification.

go read the "damn son" post in the rants section. has videos of what "poofing" means.

[Socratic]

Yea I'm hoping for some clarification beyond the troll cave, but this means you read "poofing" as #3 then?

[maverixdamighty]

Yea I'm hoping for some clarification beyond the troll cave, but this means you read "poofing" as #3 then?

Yes. Using it to ignore game mechanics where if you are LD in game with agro you stay in game until that agro drops.

[Socratic]

Yes. Using it to ignore game mechanics where if you are LD in game with agro you stay in game until that agro drops.

That's not true though. I've seen people without IP exemptions battle light blues for a few minutes until their character dropped from world. They never lost aggro.

But now your statement seems to indicate you think it's #1... I'm confused.

[falkun]

If you go LD while having aggro and you are not DA, your character will stay in the game world for a while. This is classic. Don't utilize any method that could circumvent this classic mechanic.

[Rhambuk]

That's not true though. I've seen people without IP exemptions battle light blues for a few minutes until their character dropped from world. They never lost aggro.

But now your statement seems to indicate you think it's #1... I'm confused.

There is a way, im not sure how nor would I post it if I did, to force poof yourself from game. Lots of people to do it to save from death or use it to splitpull.

Anyway its been an issue because people /q and survive a train or something when they should die. Nice to see some action over it, go get em sirken

[maverixdamighty]

That's not true though. I've seen people without IP exemptions battle light blues for a few minutes until their character dropped from world. They never lost aggro.

But now your statement seems to indicate you think it's #1... I'm confused.

i think it's a combination between 1 and 3.

[Sirken]

https://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103772

[Socratic]

So #3? That link doesn't clarify anything.

[Itap]

So #3? That link doesn't clarify anything.

If you go LD while having aggro and you are not DA, your character will stay in the game world for a while. This is classic. Don't utilize any method that could circumvent this classic mechanic.

[thrump]

Would love to hear your thoughts re: timers.

I play a FD class and have an exemption because my husband and I play together. With the FD changes I sometimes need to FD and then /q agro. How long do I need to stay out before choosing to load past server? 30 sec, like camping?

[maverixdamighty]

Would love to hear your thoughts re: timers.

I play a FD class and have an exemption because my husband and I play together. With the FD changes I sometimes need to FD and then /q agro. How long do I need to stay out before choosing to load past server? 30 sec, like camping?

that's not poofing...

[thrump]

that's not poofing...

It would be if I came back in immediately, I assume? FD -> /q -> re-enter

I'm asking how long we need to stay out, having /q'd.

[maverixdamighty]

It would be if I came back in immediately, I assume? FD -> /q -> re-enter

I'm asking how long we need to stay out, having /q'd.

if you immediately came back because you had a 2nd window open that would be abusing the exemption. Not sure if your question has been addressed, but if you are logging in faster than you would be able to w/o the exemption you would be in the wrong.

[thrump]

... if you are logging in faster than you would be able to w/o the exemption...

Right, of course I would be -- because I'm not held at server select while my char is in world. The difference between a 2nd window and the same window after /q is probably all of a couple of seconds. Thus the question of how long they'd want people to wait. I'll go with 30 seconds unless I hear otherwise. /shrug

[Tippett]

I demonstrated/explained "insta-poofing" for nilbog and Sirken the other day.

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.

It's abuse is extremely common on both servers, and I am very glad there is something finally being done about it.

[finalgrunt]

Right, of course I would be -- because I'm not held at server select while my char is in world. The difference between a 2nd window and the same window after /q is probably all of a couple of seconds. Thus the question of how long they'd want people to wait. I'll go with 30 seconds unless I hear otherwise. /shrug

If you play normally, you shouldn't ever ask yourself if what you're doing is legit or not.
People don't immediatly /q after they FD. If you know you don't have aggro after a FD (successful FD, all DD spells resisted etc.), then you can /q.

If you FD, instant /q and relog, that just means you know you're using this to drop aggro.

[thrump]

If you play normally, you shouldn't ever ask yourself if what you're doing is legit or not.
People don't immediatly /q after they FD. If you know you don't have aggro after a FD (successful FD, all DD spells resisted etc.), then you can /q.

If you FD, instant /q and relog, that just means you know you're using this to drop aggro.

Right, of course I'm talking about a successful FD, not about /q the second I hit the ground. I can normally hide and camp out agro and I prefer that. On the occasion that I have agro on a roamer that sees hide (not gonna reset and can't just camp), FD and /q it is. Just like monks do all the time.

I'm not really at risk while FD in the scenario I am describing. I am not talking about getting out of game while being cast upon or anything, have never used it like that. I'm not in an urgent rush to get back in game any more than someone without an exemption. The fact that I FD and then /q doesn't make it shady. FD players do it all the time -- I just want to be clear on how long those of us who have exemptions for other purposes need to wait before reentering like normal.

I'm not asking if what I'm doing is legit -- I'm not using it to escape a damn thing -- I'm asking how long I have to stay out for it to not be viewed as described above. I'd only be LD for a very short while if I didn't just wait at server select awhile, thus it would potentially be seen as a poof. I don't know.

[Barkingturtle]

I see a lot of confusion in this thread--and I assumed this was common knowledge--but "poofing" is actually the act of a lady demurely expelling intestinal gases from her butthole.

[Barkingturtle]

So, I guess I'd say poofing is a little bit of number two.

[finalgrunt]

Right, of course I'm talking about a successful FD, not about /q the second I hit the ground. I can normally hide and camp out agro and I prefer that. On the occasion that I have agro on a roamer that sees hide (not gonna reset and can't just camp), FD and /q it is. Just like monks do all the time.

I'm not really at risk while FD in the scenario I am describing. I am not talking about getting out of game while being cast upon or anything, have never used it like that. I'm not in an urgent rush to get back in game any more than someone without an exemption. The fact that I FD and then /q doesn't make it shady. FD players do it all the time -- I just want to be clear on how long those of us who have exemptions for other purposes need to wait before reentering like normal.

I'm not asking if what I'm doing is legit -- I'm not using it to escape a damn thing -- I'm asking how long I have to stay out for it to not be viewed as described above. I'd only be LD for a very short while if I didn't just wait at server select awhile, thus it would potentially be seen as a poof. I don't know.

I'm pretty sure a normal login cycle is good enough. With /q you still need to re authenticate, select your toon, and get into the game (takes 30 seconds to a minute maybe?). You don't have to wait for anything.

[ymw]

I doubt Sirken is going to be hunting down monks that are clearing aggro.

It doesn't need to be some overly complicated 10-page essay explaining exactly what is and isn't okay. Some common sense can/should apply here.

If you go LD and you go through your normal login process, but an IP exemption gets you in a few seconds sooner, you're probably okay. If you are being trained in VP and use a second computer parked at the login screen to instantly boot yourself in the face of certain death, you're cheating.

[quido]

The issue isn't so much that you're getting in a few seconds sooner but rather that you can get out a few seconds sooner.

If I flop and /q and login a few seconds later and my char gets dropped from flopped LD 10 seconds sooner then he would otherwise and those 10 seconds save my feign and thus me, we're really talking about the same thing. Same thing with getting out 10 seconds early on a cleric who DAs.

I think if there's any hope of enforcing this rule, they need to set it up so that exemptions only allow you to connect to the server on a different account as opposed to the same one after LDing or whatever. This will allow people to keep their exemptions, still allows the harmless perk of the fast switch, and will prevent players from booting their threatened characters too quickly.

[finalgrunt]

The issue isn't so much that you're getting in a few seconds sooner but rather that you can get out a few seconds sooner.

If I flop and /q and login a few seconds later and my char gets dropped from flopped LD 10 seconds sooner then he would otherwise and those 10 seconds save my feign and thus me, we're really talking about the same thing. Same thing with getting out 10 seconds early on a cleric who DAs.

I think if there's any hope of enforcing this rule, they need to set it up so that exemptions only allow you to connect to the server on a different account as opposed to the same one after LDing or whatever. This will allow people to keep their exemptions, still allows the harmless perk of the fast switch, and will prevent players from booting their threatened characters too quickly.

Why would anyone /q while having aggro? If it's so as to be saved by relogging fast, this is an exploit. Sorry, but I don't see your point.

Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "those 10 seconds save my feign". Like FDing between AE casts from a dragon? That's not possible unless you had another client ready to log in. Which means you're using the fast login mechanism and IP exemption to drop earlier from game. In that case, you obviously know you're abusing it.

Simply put, there is no reason to /q with aggro, if you plan to relog soon after

[Droog007]

So, I guess I'd say poofing is a little bit of number two.

Lawled @ work ... you goofy bastard :D

[Byrjun]

Simply put, there is no reason to /q with aggro

I hope you don't mean like, FD while still having pather aggro, cause people /q in that situation all the time to clear their aggro.

[finalgrunt]

I hope you don't mean like, FD while still having pather aggro, cause people /q in that situation all the time to clear their aggro.

Indeed, pathing aggro isn't what I meant. Aggro as in being actively attacked / pursued / spell cast upon.

[quido]

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.

[Susano]

still allows the harmless perk of the fast switch

I wouldn't call this harmless considering the huge advantage it gives to people with IP exemptions on highly contested targets. Being someone without an exemption, I know I envy those with valid or falsified reasons to have one.

[finalgrunt]

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]

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:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/26587a56ecf52d2fb8a7ef15a6595478/tumblr_mig3i7DyDO1s0jakco1_400.jpg

[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:

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]

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]

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. ;)

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]

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. ;)

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....

[Ele]

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....

you first.

[arsenalpow]

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. ;)

Adriana, in VP, with the candlestick errrr stalking probe

[rsloans84]

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. ;)

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.

The GMs dont care if its fair or not dont use MQ and u wont be banned

[quido]

I bet you zone and world logs could demonstrate clear instances of this happening. How about we comb through those and discipline everyone who has ever done it?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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....

There is a different between not getting caught and having rule makers categorically leave something unenforced. When a rule making authority creates a rule and then refuses to enforce it, this creates custom and practice which, in many cases, has the same weight as the original written rule which was promulgated.

Also:

This the root of the conversation: Why is aiuas (zeelot) allowed to circumvent server rules and policies?

There is no evidence of record that Zeelot was playing Aiaus. In fact, I'm look at a post on the TMO boards, right now, from Aiaus confirming that it was him and not Zeelot.

Please see: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=900778#post900778

If you can furnish proof otherwise, please do so and this comment will be promptly withdrawn. Otherwise, please amend your language to exclude baseless claims.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Adriana, in VP, with the candlestick errrr stalking probe

Elethia, myself, and many TMO have consistently held that such ex post facto enforcements, were and are wrong.

See: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=894985&postcount=81

[Metallikus]

oh you defend your lord so consistently, he must be impressed.

Jeremy, im sure many suspended players could argue that same thing. "why am i getting victimized? i only cheated once or twice, why dont you go catch all the other cheaters?"

combing thru logs to find other abusers? I'm all for it but it won't happen. There is indisputable proof in those fraps which can be verified by logs if need be. That particular instance must be punished if there is to be any credibility retained by this server's staff.

[quido]

you're being dense

[Frieza_Prexus]

oh you defend your lord so consistently, he must be impressed.

And you consistently make baseless claims while repeatedly failing to provide any substantiation.

I am not impressed.

[Galvatar]

Jesus...WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE?

I'm not even in VP and I completely understand. The only people asking for "clarification" (well, okay, the majority of them on this thread) are trying to play sneakyfag with the rules so they can see that little window of a grey area they can exploit. I mean come on, you know what he asked you not to do, when the zookeeper marks a line next to the sleeping bear would you edge up as close as you can and ask "Is this okay?", take an inch, "Is this okay?", ad nausium?

[xarzzardorn]

Jesus...WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE?

I'm not even in VP and I completely understand. The only people asking for "clarification" (well, okay, the majority of them on this thread) are trying to play sneakyfag with the rules so they can see that little window of a grey area they can exploit. I mean come on, you know what he asked you not to do, when the zookeeper marks a line next to the sleeping bear would you edge up as close as you can and ask "Is this okay?", take an inch, "Is this okay?", ad nausium?

a wild clueless idiot appears!

[Galvatar]

So show me how I got it wrong, Xarz.

[Frieza_Prexus]

So show me how I got it wrong, Xarz.

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.

[xarzzardorn]

a) The thread in question is a fraps of someone logging into their account from a second client insta kicking or 'poofing' their character. Nobody is questioning this part

b) There are concerns that you can unintentionally break this rule depending on how it is defined since now DA /q and just a regular old /q relog are in question. Enforcement of this type of /q seems sketchy at best

all I know is that a lot more people died in VP today because of this post thanks Sirken!

[Galvatar]

Ok, I've read and actually not dismissed your points out of hand. Makes sense, I can see how you both would see it that way.

I guess all I can really offer at this point is that this thread makes me kind of glad that I am not in VP regardless of the pixels because it's stuff like this, right now, that turns what would be a beautiful game / server into, well, this.

No hate on either of you two Xarz or Frieza.

[quido]

Most people don't like underhanded shit. Just because it happens and people make a big deal out of it here doesn't mean it's common and that we don't usually have some clean and fun competition.

[Galvatar]

I have to say I was impressed with the majority of the "FE Gets a VP Kill" thread, and especially enjoyed seeing a lot of the TMO crowd coming out and saying "No joke, you guys got a good kill well done".

[quido]

poor sports are also in the minority here - most people are really cool

[Socratic]

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

[Apeople]

deontological

only philosophers use this word, burn 'em!

[radditsu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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

=

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

[Socratic]

If you don't understand the mechanic in question then you wouldn't understand why that statement isn't clear. But it's cool, rnf away.

[Tippett]

If you have played these servers for any extended period of time you know exactly what they are saying.

DO NOT FUCKING EXPLOIT AND INSTANTLY/FAST BOOT YOUR CHARACTER FROM GAME

If you have an IP exemption do not intentionally /q or /ex just so you can get out of the game faster then you should be able to.

Almost everybody knows how to instantly (as in not 10 second LD, not 5 second LD, but instantly disappearing) boot their character abusing IP exemption, do not do that either.

But you already knew both these things, I mean I only play casually and I'm aware of both so I can only imagine every raider/hardcore player have known about these forever.

If you really want to play it safe just use the "camp" command like you are suppose to, shits classic after all.

[kotton05]

whats a safe time to wait after you /q?

[Ele]

whats a safe time to wait after you /q?

No aggro, 30 seconds, same as /camp.

Aggro, 3 minutes.

If in doubt, use the time to get a glass of water.

[kotton05]

No aggro, 30 seconds, same as /camp.

Aggro, 3 minutes.

If in doubt, use the time to get a glass of water.

thanks ele, so if it takes me 15 secs to get to char select and i wait 15 secs, that would be enough time.... in your eyes. I always try to wait a few before coming back in, its hard while out pulling with aggro from a roamer and a group waiting on you.

I have /q'd and logged in over myself before, more so since this last patch. I'd like to not get banned over something so trivial.

Is there a dif between /q'ing then logging in (lets say you wait like 15 secs).... compared to having that other window ready to log you in? I've never done the second. Even tho i dont do the insta poof i still feel even waiting that small amount of time i'm back in game pretty quick, just trying to clarify more.

[quido]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're at character select after 15 sec, your char is already dropped from before?

[kotton05]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're at character select after 15 sec, your char is already dropped from before?

perhaps youre right, after about that time i start the log in, from first screen. I was under the impression it occurs once you reach select screen, so that loading time adds to the LD of your toon.

[quido]

I think you get dropped the second it lets you select the server again.

I feel like I have a 15-20sec cooldown minimum.

[kotton05]

I think you get dropped the second it lets you select the server again.

I feel like I have a 15-20sec cooldown minimum.

So a 15-20sec wait before logging in seems sufficient on a FD monk?

Only classes that should /q on semi regular basis are necro/monk/sk. I heard with no IP exempt its like 30 secs before you can log in again... can this be confirmed

and by cool down you mean you have to wait for the IP to be unblocked? (while /q non aggro)

[quido]

yeah unaggro if you LD or whatever it's 30 sec - 3 min with aggro

If we're holding people to the same rules - I don't think 15-20 sec is sufficient. Everyone needs to be held to the same timer regardless of class.

[kotton05]

Aye ill wait 30 from now on, I think my 15 sec wait was cause it took me 15 to get into game as well, but i was under the impression it didnt kick you till at select screen.

With what you and ele have pointed out I'm now more clear, sounds great, hope other fd classes read as well.

[quido]

So difficult to enforce though. They should just change it so that no one can poof quicker than 30 seconds. I think I read something from Sirken earlier implying that the system would probably be revised.

[kotton05]

So difficult to enforce though. They should just change it so that no one can poof quicker than 30 seconds. I think I read something from Sirken earlier implying that the system would probably be revised.

Yea the enforcement will be trivial at best (like proof of the poof on fraps + proof he didnt get coth)

I agree if its going to be a rule the current IP exemption will need a revise. Not sure how hard it is to code something like that but adding a 30 sec delay min would be a quick fix and stop alot of lawyering/petitions.

[arosian]

So difficult to enforce though. They should just change it so that no one can poof quicker than 30 seconds. I think I read something from Sirken earlier implying that the system would probably be revised.

Nilbog stated on a previous page:

We have plans to isolate and correct the problem.