User talk:Auron/RR

RR

This is a general problem with Anet, it take ages for them to deal with a problem. I dunno but when you see something being abused you straight remove it, then take time work on it and enable the corrected version. Why oh why they act like if they want the economy of their game completely destroyed ? It's been so long that RR exploit exists and they didn't move a single finger... It's been so long that SF exploit exists...

This user thinks knows ArenaNet is terrible.

M3G 13:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's more lack of effort than lack of knowledge or community communication. It's less work for the design team to pass the game issue off to support than to design and implement a fix themselves. They wanted to do some PvP love, so that means they euthanize HB and make a new arena. I would rather they put their limited development resources into the highest return features. Patching a bad game format is not a priority. - = Obie Quiet 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Spot on Auron... How to patch. Get SVN version for live servers. Locate HB code, patch in that /resign gives Dishonor, patch in that mapping out of a PvP match (system wide actually) gives Dishonor. Compile. Test. Commit. Done. Oversimplified yes but a pretty simple process and a pretty simple solution. They chose not to fix it and let it snowball. 200.67.45.202 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad they took HB out yesterday though and put in the new Codex Arena. But it was a very overlooked problem and glad to see something done about it at least.-Kage No Yugata 06:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the sad parts of RR day (there are many) is that a lot of players who don't frequent wiki/forums actually think it's a rule that you have to resign, and that's how the developers wanted you to play. I fought one guy (I was red, but didn't resign) who started cursing at me for not leaving and said he was going to report me. I asked him "what for?" and he said "Red always resigns. Ask anyone. You can get banned for not resigning." (ofc he said it in all caps with bad spelling and grammar) ~Shard 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

what. lol. - Wuhy 11:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Running

I heard once back when I first started playing that running (IE: Ascalon/Beacons/Droknars) was against the EULA. But I haven't actually heard of anyone being banned for it. Not completely relevant but slightly related-- anguard 14:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. The only thing ANet ever bans people for are racial slurs, innapropriate names, or RMTs. The threats from Gaile/Regina/Lindsey/whoever are just official responses. You ask Gaile "ISNT RR EXPLOITING?!" and of course she's going to say "Yes." because we all know it is. They threaten to ban people for manipulation, but they would never ban 120 districts of accounts. Mr J 14:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'm still wary of displaying my ill-gained Commander title on my character pages. Though, the conviently timed ranger primeval, monk elite canthan, and ele elite armors should be clue enough if they really cared to investigate.-- anguard 14:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

/report :P -- FreedomBound 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to illustrate my point, here is a quote from somewhere else: "I bot HB for 3 weeks straight with kyle reporting me twice a day and nothing happens. Say nigger in teamchat once and i'm banned for 72 not 1/2h later. GW CSRs have their priorities straight, c?" Mr J 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess which one's much easier to close/prove on a ticket, and then guess how the CSRs are measured on performance. -- FreedomBound 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Man I guess they will tempo ban (72 hours) few accounts and that's it. Those people will still have their stack of Z-keys when they log back lol M3G 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Indications so far have been that anyone they can find will be permanently banned. Misery 15:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question remains, how hard will they look? It should be pretty easy to find everyone that went from 0 to 1000 hero battles in a few weeks. -- FreedomBound 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I get the issue here but to be honest, if you still think racial slurs are trendy enough to sling about without a care, you really deserve to be banned. This isn't the fucking 1950's. Ironing out subhuman racist bitches should take precedence over a bad game mechanic that won't affect humanity outside of the GW circle, nor for any longer than the next 5-10 years tops. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What? Titani Ertan 05:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Titani Ertan 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read what he means before going into tangents about racial slurs. If you are not aware of what the topic is, you are wasting people's time posting extra jargon that is not worth reading and clogs up this discussion. He's not saying racial slurs to be trendy, he's testing Anet's ban process. His point was that they were botting and not getting in trouble, yet to make a point, they say one racial slur and are banned immediately. Do you see his point now? Do you see the experiment that they are trying to prove?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Racial slurs are still trendy. Only shallow cunts get offended by them anyway, and since nobody cares about shallow cunts, throwing racial slurs around is a win-win situation. -Auron 18:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh, they are quite stupid and annoying though. The overwhelming idiocy and incompetence grinds my gears. Pika Fan 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're such a niggerjew, Auron. :p -Cursed Angel 18:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

hitler's worst nightmare -Auron 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be gay and disabled too, I think. ;) -- Elv 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And part gypsy* --RIDDLE 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As KJ has attested...

Yay, quoted. But seriously, it's true. Very few people in-game have ANY idea this is coming (including some PvP'ers). This is going to be a HUGE slap in the face to the community. And I think many of their cheeks are still stinging from the Henchmen contest embarrassment. Thank God Halloween is coming.
Oh, and this quote pretty much sums up how I feel about this:
"No. That's bullshit. Yeah, technically, they're violating the EULA. However, I must remind us all that Rebel Rising manipulated a Monthly Automated Tournament Guild versus Guild Final and all they got was a slap on the wrist - a temporary cape trim removal. If the GvG monthly tournament final isn't worth banning over, why the hell is Hero Battles?" Karate Jesus 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad argument, tbh. rawr was punished for whatever you want to call it and that should have been an indication to people that they shouldn't follow suit. It's ANet's mistake for not making the punishment more severe and/or not following through with Hero Battles already. The indication that they've come to their fucking senses and want to take a harder stance against this type of exploitation is a good sign, not a bad one. Mr J 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or a sign that they're inconsistent. Karate Jesus 15:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Either way, if you're arguing it's a bad thing they want to take action against exploiters, then you're just wrong. Mr J 15:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

J, do you not know rawr's history with Anet? --RIDDLE 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do, but that doesn't have much bearing on the Red Resign issue nor should it have had any bearing on their punishment (although it almost certainly did). Mr J 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As even Gaile will say, the community's feelings and reactions are always taken into consideration. Banning over 10,000 people permanently is just not an option (or at least, it shouldn't be). Karate Jesus 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It actually should be an option and other games have done similar things. I believe Misery linked to the action taken by the Team Fortress 2 team where they basically removed all items held by people who have ever botted (even once or twice). But yeah, as I said above, they won't be banning 120+ districts of people. Mr J 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TBH Anet will proly just ban like 100 guys or something not enough to get a massquit but enough to "show they are serious".Obv they'll just get people to hate them because for those 100 people gw was their main game for years Lilondra 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:WoW player's viewpoint of GW's atm.png

Karate Jesus 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

10,000 people? They would never ban that many because that is half the amount of people who stiill play GW :P Koda Kumi 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

on other note - do you have a blank(no words) of that picture? -Talamare- feedback 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't, but Brett (the guy who made it) might. Let me ask him. Karate Jesus 17:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The point quoted by KJ is actually a good one. It shows inconsistency and unfairness. Of course people should be banned for abusing the game and breaking the rules (provided that it impacts the game in some major way), but if you're going to do that, start with the people who actually end up on top of the Guild Ladder, not with the ignorant. Hell, if stupidity became a bannable offense in GW, I reckon that would easily eliminate about 90% of the playerbase. -- Elv 09:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)