Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
The answer to this is either using a bug, doing something that the system was not intended to do to the detriment of others, or doing something that a system was not intended for in a way that causes any normal repercussions to be avoided.
What are some examples? In group A, duping bugs, invasion genning, things like that. In group B, SNIPE abuse (although that's usually categorized as PvP, not Mech, but it does apply), bringing in a second character to deal with a conflict started by another of your characters, and the above mentioned Tingle or MB to force a drop to steal a weapon. Group C is a bit trickier but includes things like graverobbery handoffs, or finding a way to kill someone in town that avoids getting charged with murder when you do it.
Stealing from characters also has an odd way it can fall into this category, and the example I use there is, I am sure there are people who remember a high level character who used to run through goblins stealing from everyone there. That fell into mechanics abuse because those people had absolutely no recourse. They weren't in town so accuse was useless. Most of the time they couldn't see the filching because they were so far below the other player's skill. That can be abusing the mechanics because you've avoided the normal repercussions by going so far outside the boundaries.
This is NOT all inclusive. There are a lot of other things that fall under this category. Most of them, the first time you'd get told to knock off what you're doing. Doing something that's genuinely destructive or unbalancing (a duping bug, or the thing with rerolling and handing off the money) will get you locked out immediately, but for the most part, warnings get issued here on genuinely bad behavior or on repeating things you've been told are outside the rules.
That's the basics.
--Sanguious
>or finding a way to kill someone in town that avoids getting charged with murder when you do it.
Would using a Fortress of Ice to kill someone in town count as mech abuse? Cutting off someone's arms then grappling them to the ground so they bleed out? (granted in my attempts to cut off both someone's arms before I grappled them tended to cause their death, some annoying people just need more stamina)
It's not a fursuit... it's a giant paper bag.
Lots more stuff coming 'Soon'!
http://www.zairius.com
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
Would using a Fortress of Ice to kill someone in town count as mech abuse? Cutting off someone's arms then grappling them to the ground so they bleed out? (granted in my attempts to cut off both someone's arms before I grappled them tended to cause their death, some annoying people just need more stamina)
It's not a fursuit... it's a giant paper bag.
Lots more stuff coming 'Soon'!
http://www.zairius.com
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
> Would using a Fortress of Ice to kill someone in town count as mech abuse? Cutting off someone's arms then grappling them to the ground so they bleed out?
The way I look at it, if you have to take all sorts of unusual steps to achieve your desired ends (such as, say, putting them in a FoI, cutting off their arms, and holding them down until they bleed to death instead of just putting an arrow through their heart), odds are you are probably skirting intended system limitations -- in this case avoiding getting arrested in town for something you should have been arrested for.
That's not an official ruling, by the way, just my general view on situations like this when people ask, "How was I supposed to know it was mech abuse to take three very strange sidesteps to avoid normal repercussions?". Answer: If you are avoiding what are obviously intended repercussions (avoiding a murder charge in town), that's clue #1 you are probably doing something you shouldn't. If you have to get their by taking multiple roundabout steps that nobody would normally do to achieve that end (putting them inside a magic room, cutting off limbs and grappling them to bleed them to death rather than just killing them normally), that's clue #2.
Most people who commit mech abuse know very well they are using the system in a way it wasn't intended to be used. They may not agree with the system in the first place, but that doesn't make it any less abuse.
- GM Dartenian
"You ain't seen nothin' yet!" - Al Jolson
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/dartenian/
The way I look at it, if you have to take all sorts of unusual steps to achieve your desired ends (such as, say, putting them in a FoI, cutting off their arms, and holding them down until they bleed to death instead of just putting an arrow through their heart), odds are you are probably skirting intended system limitations -- in this case avoiding getting arrested in town for something you should have been arrested for.
That's not an official ruling, by the way, just my general view on situations like this when people ask, "How was I supposed to know it was mech abuse to take three very strange sidesteps to avoid normal repercussions?". Answer: If you are avoiding what are obviously intended repercussions (avoiding a murder charge in town), that's clue #1 you are probably doing something you shouldn't. If you have to get their by taking multiple roundabout steps that nobody would normally do to achieve that end (putting them inside a magic room, cutting off limbs and grappling them to bleed them to death rather than just killing them normally), that's clue #2.
Most people who commit mech abuse know very well they are using the system in a way it wasn't intended to be used. They may not agree with the system in the first place, but that doesn't make it any less abuse.
- GM Dartenian
"You ain't seen nothin' yet!" - Al Jolson
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/dartenian/
I'm pretty sure those were two seperate methods he was describing, Dart, not a single three-stepped method..
Either...
A: Put them in a FoI, which is its own room, which I'm assuming means no justice system
or
B: Cut off their arms and hold them down
Putting them in a FoI wouldn't really help accomplish part B since anyone can just walk out of the things...
Either...
A: Put them in a FoI, which is its own room, which I'm assuming means no justice system
or
B: Cut off their arms and hold them down
Putting them in a FoI wouldn't really help accomplish part B since anyone can just walk out of the things...
<<or finding a way to kill someone in town that avoids getting charged with murder when you do it.>>
pioson is mech abuse...?
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
pioson is mech abuse...?
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
<<pioson is mech abuse...?>>
No...spelling abuse.
::hides::
Solomon
What's going on?
http://www.livejournal.com/~drbubba
No...spelling abuse.
::hides::
Solomon
What's going on?
http://www.livejournal.com/~drbubba
| <<pioson is mech abuse...?>> |
| No...spelling abuse. |
| ::hides:: |
| Solomon |
that is below the belt... now i won't save you at Vegas when my girlfriend gets tipsy and finds out which GM's are tickelish again.
Yamcer
"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF
I'd like to fix justice so that you can't use stuff like that to get around the law anyway, it'll notice you did it and slam you with the charge, but until that's feasible, I'd have to concur that doing it to get around the fine/charge is bad.
Poison's the more nebulous one, but FoI / Bleeding somebody to death while grappled are pretty clear cut.
-Z
Poison's the more nebulous one, but FoI / Bleeding somebody to death while grappled are pretty clear cut.
-Z
I'm surprised the FOI thing would be considered mechanics abuse. It seems that hiding what you are doing from the 'bystander' would be perfectly in character. Besides, the inside of the fortress is also a 'no hide' area. In some rare spots (like in front of the warrior mage guild) mana is better inside the fortress than outside. One may be bringing them into the fortress for better mana or to eliminate the threat of stealth, not to avoid the murder charge, but if they did so in town it would be mech abuse?
I've always popped boxes inside my ice fortress to avoid the risk of hitting other characters with an area effect trap. This seems a perfectly legitimate use of the ice fortress, yet aren't there also charges for setting off such traps in town? Am I engaging in 'mech abuse' if I practice box popping in my ice fortress if I happened to be in town (usually near the local healer), since I clearly won't be fined if I set off the wrong trap?
I've always popped boxes inside my ice fortress to avoid the risk of hitting other characters with an area effect trap. This seems a perfectly legitimate use of the ice fortress, yet aren't there also charges for setting off such traps in town? Am I engaging in 'mech abuse' if I practice box popping in my ice fortress if I happened to be in town (usually near the local healer), since I clearly won't be fined if I set off the wrong trap?
>It seems that hiding what you are doing from the 'bystander' would be perfectly in character. Besides, the inside of the fortress is also a 'no hide' area.
It would seem odd to me to be walking around in Seattle and see one person wave his hands at another person and they both get entombed in ice, and when the ice goes away, one of them is dead. And Seattle's a weird city.
The situation seems just the same as if the person dragged another person into an alley, slaughtered them, and then dragged the body out, coughed sheepishly, and sauntered away.
-Durnil
It would seem odd to me to be walking around in Seattle and see one person wave his hands at another person and they both get entombed in ice, and when the ice goes away, one of them is dead. And Seattle's a weird city.
The situation seems just the same as if the person dragged another person into an alley, slaughtered them, and then dragged the body out, coughed sheepishly, and sauntered away.
-Durnil
>> It seems that hiding what you are doing from the 'bystander' would be perfectly in character.
How in character something is is entirely irrelevant.
In fact, mechanics and especially policy often force you to do things that are downright out of character.
That's just how it is in DR.
Rev. Reene
You hear the ghostly voice of Mozzik say, "Look on the bright side I got us Expansed instead of incincerated."
DEAD>
You say, "I hate you so much."
Get involved!
http://reene.euphoricsoup.com/text/roleplaying.html
How in character something is is entirely irrelevant.
In fact, mechanics and especially policy often force you to do things that are downright out of character.
That's just how it is in DR.
Rev. Reene
You hear the ghostly voice of Mozzik say, "Look on the bright side I got us Expansed instead of incincerated."
DEAD>
You say, "I hate you so much."
Get involved!
http://reene.euphoricsoup.com/text/roleplaying.html
>>It would seem odd to me to be walking around in Seattle and see one person wave his hands at another person and they both get entombed in ice, and when the ice goes away, one of them is dead. And Seattle's a weird city.
Uh ... what would be the weird part for you. I'm confused. That you just saw some guy make ice from nothing in the REAL WORLD. Or that there's a dead body?
Because I've got to tell ya. If i was walking around Seattle and some person just waved his hands and he and some guy were entombed in ice, and then the ice melted and one was dead. I wouldn't care about the dead guy. I would be asking him HOW THE BLOODY HELL DID YOU MAKE THE ICE FORTRESS
"I'm a mans man, you know what I mean? I wrestle grizzly bears and drink alot of beer, and ... when the need arises."
Uh ... what would be the weird part for you. I'm confused. That you just saw some guy make ice from nothing in the REAL WORLD. Or that there's a dead body?
Because I've got to tell ya. If i was walking around Seattle and some person just waved his hands and he and some guy were entombed in ice, and then the ice melted and one was dead. I wouldn't care about the dead guy. I would be asking him HOW THE BLOODY HELL DID YOU MAKE THE ICE FORTRESS
"I'm a mans man, you know what I mean? I wrestle grizzly bears and drink alot of beer, and ... when the need arises."
>>The game is provided 'as-is', but we are not allowed to play it 'as-is'? Wouldn't the prudent response be to fix the broken parts instead of making up all these silly rules?
Consider GM development time as a payment plan. They can only get so much done in a given timeframe, but they're always working on something and are always adding new things to the list to work on.
J'Lo, no that other one
The Manipulation List -- http://symphaena.com/index.html
Consider GM development time as a payment plan. They can only get so much done in a given timeframe, but they're always working on something and are always adding new things to the list to work on.
J'Lo, no that other one
The Manipulation List -- http://symphaena.com/index.html
>>The game is provided 'as-is', but we are not allowed to play it 'as-is'? Wouldn't the prudent response be to fix the broken parts instead of making up all these silly rules?
Not really, especially when it comes to features that are game-breaking like item duplication mods, figuring glitches that let you get massive amounts of exp in a short time, unintended ways to earn 1000+ plats within the span of a couple hours. All of these are examples of (or close to examples) of things that have happened in DR's 10+ year history. It's silly not to expect SIMU to emake rules that outlaw game-breaking features. It's also silly to expect them to go 'Oh, our bad for not noticing it, yeah you guys can just go ahead and keep on raking in hundreds of ranks within a week till we fix this, totally our fault.'
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
Not really, especially when it comes to features that are game-breaking like item duplication mods, figuring glitches that let you get massive amounts of exp in a short time, unintended ways to earn 1000+ plats within the span of a couple hours. All of these are examples of (or close to examples) of things that have happened in DR's 10+ year history. It's silly not to expect SIMU to emake rules that outlaw game-breaking features. It's also silly to expect them to go 'Oh, our bad for not noticing it, yeah you guys can just go ahead and keep on raking in hundreds of ranks within a week till we fix this, totally our fault.'
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
>Not really, especially when it comes to features that are game-breaking
If it was really game breaking, I would think they'd fix it pdq. There shouldn't be a mech abuse penalty, unless you are specifically told not to replicate it. The problem is we are not told, directly.
Some don't seem to mind bugs and abuse where players aren't getting thier just rewards for playing (exp bug, for instance), but stuff 4 loaded crossbows in a baldric (oops!?!?!) and Elanthia splits in half straight down the middle. Thats called shenanigans.
If it was really game breaking, I would think they'd fix it pdq. There shouldn't be a mech abuse penalty, unless you are specifically told not to replicate it. The problem is we are not told, directly.
Some don't seem to mind bugs and abuse where players aren't getting thier just rewards for playing (exp bug, for instance), but stuff 4 loaded crossbows in a baldric (oops!?!?!) and Elanthia splits in half straight down the middle. Thats called shenanigans.
>If it was really game breaking, I would think they'd fix it pdq. There shouldn't be a mech abuse penalty, unless you are specifically told not to replicate it. The problem is we are not told, directly.
Like hey I can fiddle with this ATM an odd way to give me 1000s of dollars.... they won't jail me for that.
It's not a fursuit... it's a giant paper bag.
Lots more stuff coming 'Soon'!
http://www.zairius.com
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
Like hey I can fiddle with this ATM an odd way to give me 1000s of dollars.... they won't jail me for that.
It's not a fursuit... it's a giant paper bag.
Lots more stuff coming 'Soon'!
http://www.zairius.com
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
>> Thats called shenanigans.
Indeed.
There is also a hard-line difference in my mind between actual bug abuse (plat/item duplication for example) and so-called "mechanics abuse" as it is defined in DR, which isn't abusing any bug in the system at all. Indeed in some cases is just a person using an ability in a way a GM didn't anticipate or just plain doesn't like. I'd post my favorite example but I don't want to get my post pulled :)
Rev. Reene
>
Majebrad closes an unlonchai bucket labeled "LuvIceMaker".
>
Get involved!
http://reene.euphoricsoup.com/text/roleplaying.html
Indeed.
There is also a hard-line difference in my mind between actual bug abuse (plat/item duplication for example) and so-called "mechanics abuse" as it is defined in DR, which isn't abusing any bug in the system at all. Indeed in some cases is just a person using an ability in a way a GM didn't anticipate or just plain doesn't like. I'd post my favorite example but I don't want to get my post pulled :)
Rev. Reene
>
Majebrad closes an unlonchai bucket labeled "LuvIceMaker".
>
Get involved!
http://reene.euphoricsoup.com/text/roleplaying.html
The whole concept of "mechanics abuse" is absurdly ambiguous. It pretty much allows for anything a developer didn't explicitly think of when designing something to be considered "abuse". "Creative use" is pretty much forbidden.
The inconsistency of it makes any sort of serious enforcement for anything that isn't clearly a bug (like, say, the old sit'n'circle brawling bug) downright shady.
The trader-table thing, for instance, was a little ridiculous. What he was doing wasn't any fundamentally different than what every other player with multiple accounts does in TF - using one to aide the other through teaching, buffs,etc. There was no "abuse" there. X action gave Y experience. This was by design. The only thing that was outside the "Design" was repeating it. Blaming the player for that is silly - anyone designing systems for DR should be WELL aware that if it yields good experience, and CAN be done repeatedly, it WILL be done repeatedly.
There are literally dozens of other ways in game to "Create" experience for a character out of no where, either with a single character or multiple characters. Pet bleeders, shadowlings (hiding, stalking, power perception and...oh, PM and harness too...probably the only thing they were ever INTENDED to teach), pet pickpockets, etc. You can still learn stalking to infinity on ship rats, last I checked. Anyone remember locate/backtrace circles? That was fixed eventually, but not a single person - at least in TF - was ever reprimanded for it. I've NEVER heard of anyone else - especially in TF - having the hammer dropped on them for doing any of these actions at all, for that matter.
The inconsistency of it makes any sort of serious enforcement for anything that isn't clearly a bug (like, say, the old sit'n'circle brawling bug) downright shady.
The trader-table thing, for instance, was a little ridiculous. What he was doing wasn't any fundamentally different than what every other player with multiple accounts does in TF - using one to aide the other through teaching, buffs,etc. There was no "abuse" there. X action gave Y experience. This was by design. The only thing that was outside the "Design" was repeating it. Blaming the player for that is silly - anyone designing systems for DR should be WELL aware that if it yields good experience, and CAN be done repeatedly, it WILL be done repeatedly.
There are literally dozens of other ways in game to "Create" experience for a character out of no where, either with a single character or multiple characters. Pet bleeders, shadowlings (hiding, stalking, power perception and...oh, PM and harness too...probably the only thing they were ever INTENDED to teach), pet pickpockets, etc. You can still learn stalking to infinity on ship rats, last I checked. Anyone remember locate/backtrace circles? That was fixed eventually, but not a single person - at least in TF - was ever reprimanded for it. I've NEVER heard of anyone else - especially in TF - having the hammer dropped on them for doing any of these actions at all, for that matter.
>There was no "abuse" there. X action gave Y experience. This was by design. The only thing that was outside the "Design" was repeating it. Blaming the player for that is silly - anyone designing systems for DR should be WELL aware that if it yields good experience, and CAN be done repeatedly, it WILL be done repeatedly.
There was abuse... anything being bought isn't going to be given right back to the seller to be resold. Experience is calibrated with the expectations that items are only sold once.
It's not a fursuit... it's a giant paper bag.
Lots more stuff coming 'Soon'!
http://www.zairius.com
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
There was abuse... anything being bought isn't going to be given right back to the seller to be resold. Experience is calibrated with the expectations that items are only sold once.
It's not a fursuit... it's a giant paper bag.
Lots more stuff coming 'Soon'!
http://www.zairius.com
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
<<There was abuse... anything being bought isn't going to be given right back to the seller to be resold.>>
First of all, whether it "makes sense" or not is irrelevant.
There is nothing fundamentally different there, in terms of common sense, from standing around folding origami while a small fortune in pork bellies try to eviscerate you just for experience...or from having a pet character get maimed to work empathy, or standing around gushing blood from every limb for days on end to work first aid.
There was no abuse here beyond any other form of created experience, which makes the reprimand quite absurd.
<<Experience is calibrated with the expectations that items are only sold once.>>
The designer was naive. That's not the player's fault. He found a creative way to mind lock his trading skill.
First of all, whether it "makes sense" or not is irrelevant.
There is nothing fundamentally different there, in terms of common sense, from standing around folding origami while a small fortune in pork bellies try to eviscerate you just for experience...or from having a pet character get maimed to work empathy, or standing around gushing blood from every limb for days on end to work first aid.
There was no abuse here beyond any other form of created experience, which makes the reprimand quite absurd.
<<Experience is calibrated with the expectations that items are only sold once.>>
The designer was naive. That's not the player's fault. He found a creative way to mind lock his trading skill.
Lets see, he/she found a way to gain incredible amounts of experience from a system that's supposed to give experience based on selling, all without anyone actually selling anything.
You're right, how could anyone know that was an abuse of the system. He/she must have been punished because the GMs are sadists!
Here's a test, did he/she tell anyone about what he/she was doing?
Magic's Death Caraamon M.,
Gor'Tog Barbarian Extrordi...Well somewhat average
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
You're right, how could anyone know that was an abuse of the system. He/she must have been punished because the GMs are sadists!
Here's a test, did he/she tell anyone about what he/she was doing?
Magic's Death Caraamon M.,
Gor'Tog Barbarian Extrordi...Well somewhat average
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
>> Here's a test, did he/she tell anyone about what he/she was doing?
It was TF.
'Nuff said.
Rev. Reene
>
Majebrad closes an unlonchai bucket labeled "LuvIceMaker".
>
Get involved!
http://reene.euphoricsoup.com/text/roleplaying.html
It was TF.
'Nuff said.
Rev. Reene
>
Majebrad closes an unlonchai bucket labeled "LuvIceMaker".
>
Get involved!
http://reene.euphoricsoup.com/text/roleplaying.html
<<Lets see, he/she found a way to gain incredible amounts of experience from a system that's supposed to give experience based on selling, all without anyone actually selling anything.>>
Please explain how that is fundamentally different from each of these:
1. Groups of moonmages getting together to mass locate and gain "incredible amounts of experience" from an ability that wasn't really even supposed to teach much of anything at all, but just happened to do so when you stacked tons of locates on top of eachother
2. Moonmages gaining "incredible amounts of experience" in stealth skills to levels that normally cannot be learned outside of combat (and MUCH faster than ANYONE can earn them in combat, for that matter).
3. Using an alt to lop off another alts limbs to gain incredible amounts of experience from a system that's supposed to give experience based on healing. This is no more "healing" than that was "selling", yet no one has ever been reprimanded for this in TF.
4. Spamming 4th tier TM spells on empath guardian spirits to gain incredible amounts of experience from spells that are only supposed to be used in combat.
Please explain how that is fundamentally different from each of these:
1. Groups of moonmages getting together to mass locate and gain "incredible amounts of experience" from an ability that wasn't really even supposed to teach much of anything at all, but just happened to do so when you stacked tons of locates on top of eachother
2. Moonmages gaining "incredible amounts of experience" in stealth skills to levels that normally cannot be learned outside of combat (and MUCH faster than ANYONE can earn them in combat, for that matter).
3. Using an alt to lop off another alts limbs to gain incredible amounts of experience from a system that's supposed to give experience based on healing. This is no more "healing" than that was "selling", yet no one has ever been reprimanded for this in TF.
4. Spamming 4th tier TM spells on empath guardian spirits to gain incredible amounts of experience from spells that are only supposed to be used in combat.
>>At least the ATM has the rule (law) posted on it, as opposed to subjective obfuscation of mechanical rules.
No. Laws and DR policy are largely the same. In other words, they are a written and codified set of rules that are open to personal and judicial interpretation that often results in arbitrary enforcement based on personal bias.
There is no such thing as objective rules, IG or not. Judges and police are racists or sexists, politicians can be bought, etc etc. One judge will give you a different sentence from another judge just as one GM will punish you differently then another GM.
>>The whole concept of "mechanics abuse" is absurdly ambiguous. It pretty much allows for anything a developer didn't explicitly think of when designing something to be considered "abuse". "Creative use" is pretty much forbidden.
And why should 'creative use' of the system be encouraged? That is a phrase that bothers me, not 'mechanics abuse.' 'Creative use' can be used to justify item duplication just as much as it can snipe abuse.
A couple things to keep in mind:
A) SIMU policy was largely made as a response to abuse. There aren't rules because they want to punish you, there are rules because people were abusing the system for PvP, personal gain or what have you and disrupting the playability of others. New rules are/were incorporated when mech abusers found new ways to abuse others/the game.
B) A certain ambiguity is not only encouraged, it is necessary. God/Evolution/The Divine/whatever you believe is the cause of RL life, is not releasing new systems into the world very couple months. Life is life is life. You're not going to find a 'bug' in real life that will make you massively smarter all of a sudden, so this is the only large sense in which DR rules must differ from actual laws. Actual laws can be concrete. Since Simu is releasing/modifying the DR 'reality' constantly, people will find new ways to completely break the game every now and again. If there wasn't any ambuigity, the mech abuser could just point to the rules and say 'but that's not illegal, so you can't punish me.'
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
No. Laws and DR policy are largely the same. In other words, they are a written and codified set of rules that are open to personal and judicial interpretation that often results in arbitrary enforcement based on personal bias.
There is no such thing as objective rules, IG or not. Judges and police are racists or sexists, politicians can be bought, etc etc. One judge will give you a different sentence from another judge just as one GM will punish you differently then another GM.
>>The whole concept of "mechanics abuse" is absurdly ambiguous. It pretty much allows for anything a developer didn't explicitly think of when designing something to be considered "abuse". "Creative use" is pretty much forbidden.
And why should 'creative use' of the system be encouraged? That is a phrase that bothers me, not 'mechanics abuse.' 'Creative use' can be used to justify item duplication just as much as it can snipe abuse.
A couple things to keep in mind:
A) SIMU policy was largely made as a response to abuse. There aren't rules because they want to punish you, there are rules because people were abusing the system for PvP, personal gain or what have you and disrupting the playability of others. New rules are/were incorporated when mech abusers found new ways to abuse others/the game.
B) A certain ambiguity is not only encouraged, it is necessary. God/Evolution/The Divine/whatever you believe is the cause of RL life, is not releasing new systems into the world very couple months. Life is life is life. You're not going to find a 'bug' in real life that will make you massively smarter all of a sudden, so this is the only large sense in which DR rules must differ from actual laws. Actual laws can be concrete. Since Simu is releasing/modifying the DR 'reality' constantly, people will find new ways to completely break the game every now and again. If there wasn't any ambuigity, the mech abuser could just point to the rules and say 'but that's not illegal, so you can't punish me.'
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
<<And why should 'creative use' of the system be encouraged? That is a phrase that bothers me, not 'mechanics abuse.' 'Creative use' can be used to justify item duplication just as much as it can snipe abuse.>>
You just picked two examples of things they have explicit rules against as an argument to justify the complete ambiguity of the rest of the rules. Good job.
You just picked two examples of things they have explicit rules against as an argument to justify the complete ambiguity of the rest of the rules. Good job.
>>You just picked two examples of things they have explicit rules against as an argument to justify the complete ambiguity of the rest of the rules. Good job.
I don't hear you refuting my argument, only nit-picking. Ambiguity is necessary in certain areas because new systems are released constantly. If every rule was explicitly outlined and that which was not oulined was 'legal' then literally every new method of mech abuse, game-breaking or not, would be allowed until Simu changed the code. Do you concur or do you have a rebuttal?
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
I don't hear you refuting my argument, only nit-picking. Ambiguity is necessary in certain areas because new systems are released constantly. If every rule was explicitly outlined and that which was not oulined was 'legal' then literally every new method of mech abuse, game-breaking or not, would be allowed until Simu changed the code. Do you concur or do you have a rebuttal?
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
>There is no such thing as objective rules, IG or not. Judges and police are racists or sexists, politicians can be bought, etc etc. One judge will give you a different sentence from another judge just as one GM will punish you differently then another GM.
Didn't Sang just post a disclaimer about 'grey areas'. Haven't we, as players, been told that we will not get a clear list because even that would be abused?
Look at the ATM. The potential punishment for abusing it is right there. Play DR, the potential punishment for playing the game 'as its provided' is lost in grey areas, obfuscation, and how good the weed was that day.
>New rules are/were incorporated when mech abusers found new ways to abuse others/the game.
Right, instead of fixing the abusable part, make a new rule, and stuff it into the grey area. Whereas if it was important, it would be fixed, negating the need for a new grey area rule that noone is going to know about until its them looking at a screen of yellow asterisks.
Didn't Sang just post a disclaimer about 'grey areas'. Haven't we, as players, been told that we will not get a clear list because even that would be abused?
Look at the ATM. The potential punishment for abusing it is right there. Play DR, the potential punishment for playing the game 'as its provided' is lost in grey areas, obfuscation, and how good the weed was that day.
>New rules are/were incorporated when mech abusers found new ways to abuse others/the game.
Right, instead of fixing the abusable part, make a new rule, and stuff it into the grey area. Whereas if it was important, it would be fixed, negating the need for a new grey area rule that noone is going to know about until its them looking at a screen of yellow asterisks.
I don't hear you refuting my point that the action the trader was punished for is, in no way, fundamentally different from activities that take place every day in both prime and TF - only offering up largely irrelevant comparisons to the real world.
<<If every rule was explicitly outlined and that which was not oulined was 'legal' then literally every new method of mech abuse, game-breaking or not, would be allowed until Simu changed the code. >>
Which part of the code forbids sniping abuse, exactly? Oh, none of it? Because it's explicitly laid out in policy instead of code? So they wouldn't have to necessarily change the code then? Huh.
The reality of the situation is that said trader, if he is who I am thinking of, was a marked man. He was going to "Get got" in the first vaguely justifiable way they could manage to do so.
<<If every rule was explicitly outlined and that which was not oulined was 'legal' then literally every new method of mech abuse, game-breaking or not, would be allowed until Simu changed the code. >>
Which part of the code forbids sniping abuse, exactly? Oh, none of it? Because it's explicitly laid out in policy instead of code? So they wouldn't have to necessarily change the code then? Huh.
The reality of the situation is that said trader, if he is who I am thinking of, was a marked man. He was going to "Get got" in the first vaguely justifiable way they could manage to do so.
>>Didn't Sang just post a disclaimer about 'grey areas'. Haven't we, as players, been told that we will not get a clear list because even that would be abused?
Yes, that's exactly the point. Unfortunately, if the rules are clearly specified then some bug-abusing snert will find an elaborate five-step way to 'legally' duplicate items and then cry wolf when he's punished. I'm sure you can see why that would be just a little silly.
>>Look at the ATM. The potential punishment for abusing it is right there. Play DR, the potential punishment for playing the game 'as its provided' is lost in grey areas, obfuscation, and how good the weed was that day.
The same can be said of law. However, I think you're using the 'as it is provided' clause to try and justify mech abuse. This is incorrect. The 'as it is provided' clause means that you do not have a right to seek in-game or real-life reparations from Simutronics if you somehow disagree with the experience rate, or the cost of store-bought scimitars, etc etc. It has nothing to do with mech abuse, and certainly shouldn't be used to try and justify your right to abuse mechanics (if I am understanding what you are saying).
>>Right, instead of fixing the abusable part, make a new rule, and stuff it into the grey area. Whereas if it was important, it would be fixed, negating the need for a new grey area rule that noone is going to know about until its them looking at a screen of yellow asterisks.
But they often do fix the abusable parts, especially the bad ones. As a very recent example, I'm sure GM-Reexa dropped everything she was coding at the time to fix perm-heartlink glitch with NB once it was brought to her attention. The point is that, with a limited team of largely volunteer GMs, it could be days (or even weeks) before large bugs are fixed. The ability and right to punish mech abusers must be there, not until Simu 'changes the rules' or 'fixes the code.'
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Unfortunately, if the rules are clearly specified then some bug-abusing snert will find an elaborate five-step way to 'legally' duplicate items and then cry wolf when he's punished. I'm sure you can see why that would be just a little silly.
>>Look at the ATM. The potential punishment for abusing it is right there. Play DR, the potential punishment for playing the game 'as its provided' is lost in grey areas, obfuscation, and how good the weed was that day.
The same can be said of law. However, I think you're using the 'as it is provided' clause to try and justify mech abuse. This is incorrect. The 'as it is provided' clause means that you do not have a right to seek in-game or real-life reparations from Simutronics if you somehow disagree with the experience rate, or the cost of store-bought scimitars, etc etc. It has nothing to do with mech abuse, and certainly shouldn't be used to try and justify your right to abuse mechanics (if I am understanding what you are saying).
>>Right, instead of fixing the abusable part, make a new rule, and stuff it into the grey area. Whereas if it was important, it would be fixed, negating the need for a new grey area rule that noone is going to know about until its them looking at a screen of yellow asterisks.
But they often do fix the abusable parts, especially the bad ones. As a very recent example, I'm sure GM-Reexa dropped everything she was coding at the time to fix perm-heartlink glitch with NB once it was brought to her attention. The point is that, with a limited team of largely volunteer GMs, it could be days (or even weeks) before large bugs are fixed. The ability and right to punish mech abusers must be there, not until Simu 'changes the rules' or 'fixes the code.'
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
<<The ability and right to punish mech abusers must be there, not until Simu 'changes the rules' or 'fixes the code.'>>
Except they typically don't, which seems to be a concept that continually eludes you. There was nothing special about the actions of that trader that was fundamentally different than any number of other abuses that remain in place until they're ultimately fixes that no one is ever punished for.
Except they typically don't, which seems to be a concept that continually eludes you. There was nothing special about the actions of that trader that was fundamentally different than any number of other abuses that remain in place until they're ultimately fixes that no one is ever punished for.
>>I don't hear you refuting my point that the action the trader was punished for is, in no way, fundamentally different from activities that take place every day in both prime and TF - only offering up largely irrelevant comparisons to the real world.
The reason I'm not refuting your point is because I think it's valid. They are two completely different points though. This has nothing to do with the thread I was making. It's a discussion, not a contest.
>>Which part of the code forbids sniping abuse, exactly? Oh, none of it? Because it's explicitly laid out in policy instead of code? So they wouldn't have to necessarily change the code then? Huh.
Your point being? Please clarify. I don't see how this is relevant to what I was referring.
>>The reality of the situation is that said trader, if he is who I am thinking of, was a marked man. He was going to "Get got" in the first vaguely justifiable way they could manage to do so.
I highly doubt this.
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
The reason I'm not refuting your point is because I think it's valid. They are two completely different points though. This has nothing to do with the thread I was making. It's a discussion, not a contest.
>>Which part of the code forbids sniping abuse, exactly? Oh, none of it? Because it's explicitly laid out in policy instead of code? So they wouldn't have to necessarily change the code then? Huh.
Your point being? Please clarify. I don't see how this is relevant to what I was referring.
>>The reality of the situation is that said trader, if he is who I am thinking of, was a marked man. He was going to "Get got" in the first vaguely justifiable way they could manage to do so.
I highly doubt this.
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
>>Except they typically don't, which seems to be a concept that continually eludes you. There was nothing special about the actions of that trader that was fundamentally different than any number of other abuses that remain in place until they're ultimately fixes that no one is ever punished for.
I disagree. There is certainly some manner of arbitrary enforcement, though in this sense Simuntronics is no different from any other business, government, military unit or anyone with power to punish.
If the GMs were just looking for a way to 'get' the Trader, it probably means that the Trader on his various accounts had a long history of mech abuse, harassment, unconsented PvP or any other number of things. It's not like they just flip a coin and say 'Okay, you're locked out.'
And I think further discussion is pointless. I simply disagree and you're rather intent on making it more and more personal.
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
I disagree. There is certainly some manner of arbitrary enforcement, though in this sense Simuntronics is no different from any other business, government, military unit or anyone with power to punish.
If the GMs were just looking for a way to 'get' the Trader, it probably means that the Trader on his various accounts had a long history of mech abuse, harassment, unconsented PvP or any other number of things. It's not like they just flip a coin and say 'Okay, you're locked out.'
And I think further discussion is pointless. I simply disagree and you're rather intent on making it more and more personal.
You are Malkien, a dashing Barbarian. Huzzah!
You are Apis, a legendary Cleric in your own head.
You are Ragesong. What sort of Kaldar is a Bard, anyways, doofus?
You are also Pellazan (WM), Essatariol (Ranger) and running out of sig space.
<<Your point being? Please clarify. I don't see how this is relevant to what I was referring.>>
Your implication was that it's somehow unreasonable to expect the rules to be laid out because it was require an undue amount of effort on the part of the GMs. It really isn't that hard to say, "Wow, hey...this isn't supposed to be like this. Our bad. From here on out, we'll punish you if you do it." You know, kind of like how the examples you gave earlier (sniping, duping) are explicitly laid out as bad?
It's completely unreasonable to expect players to "guess". A blanket rule of, "Don't do anything we didn't mean for you to be able to do, even if the mechanics themselves are apparently functioning correctly" is absurd. Take, for example, shift moonbeam. Some climbing/swimming areas can be surpassed by it completely. Others can't. Are the ones that can intended to be that way? Or is it an oversight? If it was an oversight, should those players that did it be punished when it's discovered?
<<
I highly doubt this.
>>
I don't. It's possible that it's not the trader I'm thinking of, in which case I'd retract that statement. If it is, however, I absolutely stand by it. It's not like there isn't precedent.
Your implication was that it's somehow unreasonable to expect the rules to be laid out because it was require an undue amount of effort on the part of the GMs. It really isn't that hard to say, "Wow, hey...this isn't supposed to be like this. Our bad. From here on out, we'll punish you if you do it." You know, kind of like how the examples you gave earlier (sniping, duping) are explicitly laid out as bad?
It's completely unreasonable to expect players to "guess". A blanket rule of, "Don't do anything we didn't mean for you to be able to do, even if the mechanics themselves are apparently functioning correctly" is absurd. Take, for example, shift moonbeam. Some climbing/swimming areas can be surpassed by it completely. Others can't. Are the ones that can intended to be that way? Or is it an oversight? If it was an oversight, should those players that did it be punished when it's discovered?
<<
I highly doubt this.
>>
I don't. It's possible that it's not the trader I'm thinking of, in which case I'd retract that statement. If it is, however, I absolutely stand by it. It's not like there isn't precedent.
So basically what you're saying is that because they haven't chosen to punish certain instances of mech abuse, all mech abuse is alright?
Huh, so if they don't have enough evidence to charge someone else for murder, that means that suddenly it's fair game to kill anyone you want?
Okay, maybe that's a bit absurd of an example, but my point still stands. Regardless of anything else, the truth is that some GM saw something about that situation that they felt warranted a punishment. Short of getting said GM drunk or finding a way to blackmail or torture them, we'll never know what it was.
You don't know the whole story, I don't know it, and probably the GMs don't know it. Any individual case is useless as an example.
The moral of this story is: If you find a way to get a lot of experience from doing something odd, you're probably cheating. If more people avoided such behaviors, even if they risked not being able to do something legal, this game might end up being better all around.
Magic's Death Caraamon M.,
Gor'Tog Barbarian Extrordi...Well somewhat average
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Huh, so if they don't have enough evidence to charge someone else for murder, that means that suddenly it's fair game to kill anyone you want?
Okay, maybe that's a bit absurd of an example, but my point still stands. Regardless of anything else, the truth is that some GM saw something about that situation that they felt warranted a punishment. Short of getting said GM drunk or finding a way to blackmail or torture them, we'll never know what it was.
You don't know the whole story, I don't know it, and probably the GMs don't know it. Any individual case is useless as an example.
The moral of this story is: If you find a way to get a lot of experience from doing something odd, you're probably cheating. If more people avoided such behaviors, even if they risked not being able to do something legal, this game might end up being better all around.
Magic's Death Caraamon M.,
Gor'Tog Barbarian Extrordi...Well somewhat average
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
