Jump to content


Fair Play Policy Q&A

fair Play Mods

  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

CavScout19D #161 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 22:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostTolos, on Nov 17 2016 - 15:30, said:

 

Short answer, yes they are if they are using aa+.

 

And this is why it would be useless for WG to identify mods by name. WG wants to prevent specific functions not forbid certain named mods. If a mod doesn't do any forbidden function/specified cheat it is not forbidden to use. 

Tolos #162 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 22:15

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 17,883
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostCavScout19D, on Nov 17 2016 - 21:12, said:

 

And this is why it would be useless for WG to identify mods by name. WG wants to prevent specific functions not forbid certain named mods. If a mod doesn't do any forbidden function/specified cheat it is not forbidden to use. 

 

Problem is, you are asking WG to be CRYSTAL clear on a subject, and as we all know that will NEVER happen lol.

CavScout19D #163 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 22:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostTolos, on Nov 17 2016 - 16:15, said:

View PostCavScout19D, on Nov 17 2016 - 21:12, said:

 

And this is why it would be useless for WG to identify mods by name. WG wants to prevent specific functions not forbid certain named mods. If a mod doesn't do any forbidden function/specified cheat it is not forbidden to use. 

 

Problem is, you are asking WG to be CRYSTAL clear on a subject, and as we all know that will NEVER happen lol.

No, WG was pretty clear.

 

Question: The ability to lock onto a target that isn’t highlighted, is that illegal?

  • Answer: This is now considered a cheat.

 

The only function, of the many it does, AA+ had that ran afoul of the rules was the ability to snap onto targets without highlighting them. That was removed and now the mod doesn't violate any of the stated "fair play" rules. 



ImaKillYou #164 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 22:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27403 battles
  • 1,218
  • [-GENT] -GENT
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011

View PostCavScout19D, on Nov 17 2016 - 14:12, said:

 

And this is why it would be useless for WG to identify mods by name. WG wants to prevent specific functions not forbid certain named mods. If a mod doesn't do any forbidden function/specified cheat it is not forbidden to use. 

 

This just adds MORE confusion to the mix. AA+ ver xyz1 is illegal, but AA+ ver xyz2 is not. If they can call Battle Calc mod legal by its name they can do the same with AA+ ver xyz2

CavScout19D #165 Posted Nov 17 2016 - 22:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 24434 battles
  • 4,773
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostImaKillYou, on Nov 17 2016 - 16:30, said:

 

This just adds MORE confusion to the mix. AA+ ver xyz1 is illegal, but AA+ ver xyz2 is not. If they can call Battle Calc mod legal by its name they can do the same with AA+ ver xyz2

 

That's why WG shouldn't name mods as banned (other than examples) but name the functions/abilities/enhancements they deem unwanted. 

Gomez_Adams #166 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 09:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 5 battles
  • 5,402
  • Member since:
    04-06-2015

View PostTolos, on Nov 17 2016 - 16:15, said:

 

Problem is, you are asking WG to be CRYSTAL clear on a subject, and as we all know that will NEVER happen lol.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

SynapticSqueeze #167 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 18:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11148 battles
  • 220
  • [5LINE] 5LINE
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostGunadie, on Nov 16 2016 - 00:22, said:

 

Not allowed

Allowed...NOT

Not allowed

Not

 

The armor viewer on the Chameleon mod pictured, that is explicitly *allowed* until WG puts out a vanilla version of it. The following quote is taken from http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/17/forbidden-mods/

 

Block Quote

 One More Category: In-Battle Armor Viewers

We believe this functionality (which shows the critical armor zones of a vehicle during battle) provides a significant advantage. Since we didn’t treat it as a cheat in the past, we are not adding it to the "forbidden" list for now. Instead, we're working on our own version of an in-battle armor viewer with genuinely beneficial functions. Once that debuts, the mods that offer this will be added to the list and be banned.

 

 


Edited by SynapticSqueeze, Nov 18 2016 - 18:11.


SynapticSqueeze #168 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 18:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 11148 battles
  • 220
  • [5LINE] 5LINE
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

Went and had a look at the SEA post with examples of what is and isn't allowed:

 

Is *not* allowed:

 

  • Indicators pointing in the direction of currently spotted enemy tanks outside of actual field of view (ie. not shown on the player screen), with names and distance. [edit] This is only legal if there's only one arrow pointing to the nearest enemy tank.

 

*Is* allowed:

 

  • Enemy gun indicators on the minimap: shows direction where enemies within the draw distance are pointing their guns (on the minimap)

 

Excuse me, what? How does that make any sense. The first mod basically reformats information that you have readily available from just glancing at your minimap. The turret direction mod gives you extended information about the same tanks, but in a way that actually provides significant advantage in terms of when it's safe to poke etc. It doesn't make any sense to me that one is okay and the other isn't.

 

Even more amazing is that both mods' "advantage gain" is dwarfed by that of Battle Assistant. I would go so far as to argue that BA gives more of an advantage over vanilla than just about any mod that doesn't reveal things the client is hiding from you. Yet WG feels that it's totally fine. I get that they've put themselves in a bind by letting it win a modding competition. But man up and admit your mistake, and remove the mod from the game already. No other mod we're all quibbling about the legality of provides as profound a benefit.



Major_Snafu #169 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 21:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13724 battles
  • 11
  • [SDP] SDP
  • Member since:
    06-12-2013

Full disclosure - I have never used a mod (my stats should prove that :()

 

Question: How can this be verified to be actually working? I don't believe a word of this cheat detection software [edited]. There's no way to verify results, or even know (if it really exists) that it works properly. By the questions listed here in this thread and some of the answers, it sounds like one cannot even be sure the mods they are using will get them banned. Honestly, WoT is worse than I've ever seen it right now on the NA server, game play-wise. I'm going to take to take Shaun's advice and "go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over."

 

See you (maybe) in a few months.



moogleslam #170 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 21:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 41464 battles
  • 4,407
  • [Y0L0] Y0L0
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013

View PostMajor_Snafu, on Nov 18 2016 - 15:50, said:

Full disclosure - I have never used a mod (my stats should prove that :()

 

Full disclosure - your stats don't reflect your usage of mods; they reflect your skill, or lack thereof.

spud_tuber #171 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 22:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 54440 battles
  • 7,036
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View PostMudman24, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:24, said:

Has it changed or did many players just get dependent on autoaim + ?  I have noticed no change in the vanilla autoaim since I started playing.  

Most definitely.  For me, it went from working fine one patch, to not working very well the next.  Unfortunately, I don't remember what the patch number was.  But it was coming to the forum to complain and seek a fix/work around that led me to find AA+.  Judging by the threads at that time, I'm not the only one this is true of.  Then again, even then some players said it hadn't changed for them, so it was probably not a direct change to auto aim, but rather some render and/or input back end change that only effected some people's computers and not others.

 

Edit:  reading beyond your post, I see I'm not the first to answer your question.  The others report pretty much the same issue I have. 



Isola_di_Fano #172 Posted Nov 18 2016 - 23:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 22401 battles
  • 3,784
  • Member since:
    11-05-2012

View Postmoogleslam, on Nov 18 2016 - 15:59, said:

 

Full disclosure - your stats don't reflect your usage of mods; they reflect your skill, or lack thereof.

 

Constructive I must say .

Bravo !

I applaude !

....



GhostPrime #173 Posted Nov 19 2016 - 01:06

    Community Coordinator

  • -Players-
  • 805 battles
  • 1,530
  • Member since:
    04-22-2013

View PostCavScout19D, on Nov 17 2016 - 14:52, said:

 

That's why WG shouldn't name mods as banned (other than examples) but name the functions/abilities/enhancements they deem unwanted. 

 

The function of a mod that is prohibited under the fair play policy is easier to recognize. It's the mods functions create an unfair advantage, which is why you’ll see us talking about functionality instead of specific mods.

BudEDogg #174 Posted Nov 19 2016 - 02:14

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 16250 battles
  • 516
  • [SHIRE] SHIRE
  • Member since:
    11-27-2014

View Posttelecastermds, on Nov 16 2016 - 11:21, said:

AutoAim should lock on when your cursor is on any visible part of an enemy tank

 

Right now it is not working that way as it is intended to.  I can be stationary, gun centered on an enemy tank, tank highlighted, right click, no lock.  

lithiumX3 #175 Posted Nov 19 2016 - 15:38

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 22005 battles
  • 16
  • [O-VER] O-VER
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012
How could they implement a cheat detection system mid patch?  They didn't.  Poorly executed major change for many players that were using a working game mechanic.  (autoaim+) Please implement autoaim+ into the vanilla client.  A majority of players do not want an advantage over other players, they simply want this to work as intended, and they don't want to enter battles against other players that do have an advantage.  Currently this only hurts honest players that will abide by the rules.  I'm not seeing bans for those that continue to use illegal modes.  Those players will now not only be able to use the previously banned mods, but now the new ones, with no repercussions.

SparkyGT #176 Posted Nov 19 2016 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 47999 battles
  • 4,294
  • [-NHL-] -NHL-
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
You would think the game would just show upon launch that you are running a illegal mod, and doesnt let you click battle button. It was  battlefield that had something called punkbuster which would boot players out mid game if they were running something illegal

4GOD #177 Posted Nov 19 2016 - 17:20

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 33801 battles
  • 888
  • Member since:
    12-02-2013

I seriously wonder if any of the developers or management actually ever went to a business school, because this company should be a case study in how NOT to deal with customers. Before they can ban mods they need a system to ensure that only mods they approve of will work. They don't have this system. Further, they ban mods that frankly should have been the client form the beginning. Then, to add insult to injury, the improvements to the client they create are far inferior to the mods they are supposed to replace. Finally, the developers NEVER listen to the customers. They go out do their own crappy thing then they act all shocked when their customers complain. 

They screw up clans wars 2.0 with the stupid influence system, then after massive player complaints, remove it only to go out and reduce gold payments on the global map to laughable amounts. So, nearly all of the top clans have stopped playing CW and only show up for premium tank speclal events.

As of 9.17 I'm out of here. I cannot play without autoaim+ and I despise the fact I've got to click exactly on that tank in order to tell my teammates I want to designate that tank over there for artillery strikes.

I am probably one of the top players in terms of money spent on this game and if someone like me can quit then you have really screwed the pooch. No, Wargaming, just no. Go bankrupt like so many poorly run companies. I have other companies I can spend thousands on.


Edited by 4GOD, Nov 19 2016 - 17:32.


xmadragex #178 Posted Nov 20 2016 - 00:00

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6324 battles
  • 224
  • Member since:
    08-22-2010

question to wg

 

isnthis all hot air or are you really banning thisncheater, if so why here tons of player still using autolock plus? why there still warpack user online?

 

P.S: childish trolls will ne ignore since am serious with this question



LilMorningWood #179 Posted Nov 20 2016 - 02:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 51449 battles
  • 1,809
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Yet to see a lot of these questions answered. including mine back on the first page

so2315 #180 Posted Nov 20 2016 - 03:07

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 33288 battles
  • 51
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    03-12-2011
Can WG answer one simple question? How many have been caught since this announcement? I would have to guess "0" since the gameplay just flat out sucks. In team battles you have IS 3's that can snap shot you across the map and pen the lower plate, each and every shot. I call [edited]on this announcement.





Also tagged with fair Play, Mods

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users