Condition of server - Page 7

Humerox · #61 09-03-2011, 02:37 AM

Quote:

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

Without the type of player who is most likely to cheat...

This is a false premise. Most people that would be the type of players most likely to cheat, don't. Drawing that statement out logically, you could also say that those types of players are generally anti-social, compulsive, and would fit well as the type of people that would most likely be serial killers.

Anyway...most people aren't looking for a ban. The ones calling for it misunderstand the effect it would ultimately have, or are playing a "grief the server" game.

Stripping all characters on every account, leaving them naked, combined with the proposed xp loss would be a lot more effective.

Labyrrinth · #62 09-03-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

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

Anyway...most people aren't looking for a ban. The ones calling for it misunderstand the effect it would ultimately have, or are playing a "grief the server" game.

Your are incorrect.

Most calling for a ban do NOT misunderstand the effect it would have. We know exactly what a ban means and entails. It's effect on the server would be noticeable in a multitude of ways. As far as attituded is concerned; we'd actually believe in the staff again. As it stands now it's seems very biased on the why's and how's this punishment was dealt out. What about those people that were actually BANNED in the past - how fair is this punishment that is currently being dealt to them? Regardless of how someone may want to justify it, it's not.

It's effect on the server would also be felt in the econonmy of the server. Currently the only thing stripped off of these cheating accounts was plat. Big whoop.

It would be noticeable as far as cheaters are concerned; overall less two boxing, less people running over others to get to a spawn because they know a mob is up, and perhaps more cooperation amongst individual players. In the long run, less people would be apt to test the rules if they knew that the staff actually followed through.

Yes it might drop the number of active players initially, but not by 365. 365 accounts does not equal 365 individuals. AND I can guarantee that out of however many number of players that might be banned, a good portion of them would be back regardless.

SearyxTZ · #63 09-03-2011, 12:54 PM

I have good news everyone!

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

There's a red server in the works. So, this whole blue server thing? Yeah -- doesn't really matter. 8)

SearyxTZ · #64 09-03-2011, 12:58 PM

And btw I don't really think the people who are calling for IP banning 350 people are being very realistic

You realize that's about half the concurrent server population, right?

I thought his punishment was fairly reasonable, given the advantage a player might gain from using MQ2/SEQ on a blue server (which is not as drastic as some people are making it out to be).

Messianic · #65 09-03-2011, 01:15 PM

It's okay to not ban people (the posted penalty for breaking hacking rules) as long as they're in big enough numbers.

It's settled, guys. Just be a part of a really large group doing the wrong thing and you'll get a slap on the wrist.

On a serious note, banning 350 accounts would not have the same result as taking the peak amount of players and subtracting 350, so no - that's not half the concurrent server population.

It might be 150-200 people less during peak hours - and i'm being generous. It's probably substantially less.

Autotune · #66 09-03-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

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

And btw I don't really think the people who are calling for IP banning 350 people are being very realistic

You realize that's about half the concurrent server population, right?

I thought his punishment was fairly reasonable, given the advantage a player might gain from using MQ2/SEQ on a blue server (which is not as drastic as some people are making it out to be).

350 accounts is not 350 people

Some people had multiple accounts (some they cheated on, some they didn't)

so banning the IPs would more likely affect about ~200 people max (i'm sure the majority of the people caught had 2-3+ accounts)

no way that 100-200 actual people is half the server population.

SearyxTZ · #67 09-03-2011, 01:28 PM

Yeah I am not that dumb - I meant the number itself is half of the concurrent pop.

I'm sure the total # of accounts on this server is over 10k

SearyxTZ · #68 09-03-2011, 01:29 PM

But even supposing it's 250 players (give or take), that's still an awful lot of people to be IP BANNING 4 LYFE

Doors · #69 09-03-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

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

But even supposing it's 250 players (give or take), that's still an awful lot of people to be IP BANNING 4 LYFE

People aren't really upset about the type of punishment, they are upset over the fact that certain individuals get a more lenient punishment while others like completely random strangers that find this server randomly get caught once and perma banned for doing the same exact thing.

SearyxTZ · #70 09-03-2011, 01:40 PM

I'd also reiterate that using MQ2 on a blue box is small peas compared to what red server players are used to. I'm not condoning it - and I'm glad people got punished - but I am saying it's not that big of a deal.

So some guy got his pegasus feather cloak easier than you... who gives a shit? It doesn't even affect you.

99% of the server could be hacking it up and it wouldn't affect me 1/100th as much as it did when people were using warp/speed/instacamp to shit on pvp