Jump to content


Fair Play Policy Q&A

fair Play Mods

  • Please log in to reply
384 replies to this topic

Blaze_terror #21 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13121 battles
  • 886
  • [-AK-] -AK-
  • Member since:
    05-17-2013

View PostInsurrectional_Leftist, on Nov 15 2016 - 14:17, said:

 

Because, everyone knows the Purples just don't want to be focused is all this is about.  Everyone already knows the answer to this even the Devs do.  And that's related to a WNx system thingy which is not part of WG's concern, which is a 3rd party site thingy.

 

you don't have to be purple just the best on your team and you get focused out 

The_Illusive_Man #22 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:26

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 11041 battles
  • 1,404
  • [DICE] DICE
  • Member since:
    08-30-2014

How about these mods?

9.16 [ZJ] DirectionBox/TargetDirection Build 009 Demo By ZorroJan

Spoiler

 

I hope this mod is allowed. Very useful.

 

9.16 Chameleon Customization By Gox

Spoiler

 

9.16 Something Was Hit By Lportii/Roughneck Redone By SAE & Bosomi

Spoiler

 

9.16 Optional_Devices By Bosomi V.2 - Installed Equipment Identifier (with icons)

Spoiler

 


Edited by The_Illusive_Man, Nov 16 2016 - 05:51.


Gomez_Adams #23 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 5 battles
  • 5,402
  • Member since:
    04-06-2015
I know for a fact the first three are illegal.

Kamahl1234 #24 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 17836 battles
  • 8,313
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostRin_, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:13, said:

So are we going to get hosed if we get caught. I'd like some sort of system in place to catch possible fall throughs or mistakes. I don't really want a week ban because they picked up something legal by accident. Anti-cheating systems across any game are notorious for catching people who weren't doing anything wrong. The last thing I want is over 9k battles and a good chunk of money to go down the drain because I fell 2 feet too far, and they thought I had some sort of fly hacking on.

 

They stated that the system isn't automatic, and is through an investigation process.

 

This should ideally greatly reduce false positives, which an automatic one would give. 



Akmun_Rah #25 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29586 battles
  • 663
  • [FUSON] FUSON
  • Member since:
    12-24-2011

View PostGomez_Adams, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:17, said:

 

According to them, they now have new detection software. They never did in the past.


Frankly, I don't believe one word of it. I'll believe it when dozens of people show up saying they were banned for illegal mods...because God knows this game is RIFE with them.

 

Or the game isnt RIFE with them...and you are just not as good as others?

Insurrectional_Leftist #26 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 44305 battles
  • 5,868
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

View PostBlaze_terror, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:24, said:

 

you don't have to be purple just the best on your team and you get focused out

 

I understand what you're saying exactly.  And I get what you're trying to say.  However, In my case, I consider it an honor to be "focused".  Really.  It dose not bother me a bit.  Not at all.  It must mean I'm doing something right?  I don't have a problem with it.  And I don't understand why the Purples do?  If your really that good, and your not padded, then be proud of it, and wear it well. Be proud.  Play like it.  Wear it like an honor.  Don't cry about it.  Don't ask for special protections.  I'm dead serious about that statement.

Edited by Insurrectional_Leftist, Nov 15 2016 - 21:34.


WAWps4 #27 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:35

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6059 battles
  • 286
  • Member since:
    07-06-2015

Q: How is arty considered a fair play mechanic?

Q: What will you do about arty players that drown at the end of battles when their team is going to lose?


Edited by WAWps4, Nov 15 2016 - 21:41.


Mudman24 #28 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 35754 battles
  • 11,462
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
I see the trolls got to this thread quickly.  Thanks for the clarification WG.

Mojo_Riesing #29 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15938 battles
  • 375
  • [R8DER] R8DER
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

View Poststinkybean60, on Nov 15 2016 - 12:13, said:

Question: What is the rationale behind not removing xvm/making it illegal? It doesn't really help you make good decisions, it just tells you (1) who to focus (which isn't a good thing for obv reasons) and (2) who to pick on for being bad (which sometimes is deserved, but seeing as chat was removed partially for that reason...)

 

Question: Why is the white paint mod for dead tanks illegal across some servers? I don't see how it gives an advantage. I've never used it, just find it odd.

 

So, let me understand this.  You are saying...it's ok for (self-annointed) "good" players to PICK on "bad" players, based on stats...but, it isn't ok when the "good" players in turn get targeted ...literally?   I don't think so.   I ....REALLY don't think so!

 

Oh, and another thing.  The "chat" (cross-team) was NOT removed for good players picking on bad, it was removed because the trolling and bullying and toxicity of some...was wrong, and my guess is affected WG's financial bottom line.



Rin_ #30 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:37

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17499 battles
  • 3,052
  • [R-7] R-7
  • Member since:
    11-11-2015

View PostKamahl1234, on Nov 15 2016 - 21:29, said:

They stated that the system isn't automatic, and is through an investigation process.

 

This should ideally greatly reduce false positives, which an automatic one would give. 

I agree that is the case, it just still brings to mind the possibility I get screwed for no reason. Some worker with five minutes left on the clock watches a replay sent in by xXx_isuckathtegame_xXx#23542355 where I'm accused of aim hacking. Worker figures "Well that shot kinda looked like Rin_ was tracking through hard cover, may as well ban." Hey presto, I get to lose a significant amount of time investment because screw me.


Edited by Rin_, Nov 15 2016 - 21:38.


moogleslam #31 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 27366 battles
  • 2,675
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    12-20-2013
Why are you banning Autoaim+ when SEA explicitly allow it?

Gomez_Adams #32 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:40

    Major

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

View PostAkmun_Rah, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:31, said:

 

Or the game isnt RIFE with them...and you are just not as good as others?

 

Wargaming are rolling out an ENTIRELY NEW POLICY against them and dozens of people are here asking about what are in fact illegal mods and you're going to suggest they're not a problem?

 

Wow man. That's ridiculous on a level rarely encountered.



G3nst3r #33 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:45

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 10171 battles
  • 682
  • [SCRP1] SCRP1
  • Member since:
    09-19-2015

View Postmoogleslam, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:39, said:

Why are you banning Autoaim+ when SEA explicitly allow it?

 

Are they not their own little Idaho, unlike RU,EU and NA which seem to be all in cahoots with each other?

Tolos #34 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 25997 battles
  • 16,972
  • [GDF] GDF
  • Member since:
    09-22-2010

View PostMudman24, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:35, said:

I see the trolls got to this thread quickly. Thanks for the clarification WG.

 

At least now we know though mate. Which is good news.

b00merBoy #35 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25331 battles
  • 391
  • [-LHN-] -LHN-
  • Member since:
    07-21-2013

View Poststinkybean60, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:13, said:

Question: What is the rationale behind not removing xvm/making it illegal? It doesn't really help you make good decisions, it just tells you (1) who to focus (which isn't a good thing for obv reasons) and (2) who to pick on for being bad (which sometimes is deserved, but seeing as chat was removed partially for that reason...)

 

Question: Why is the white paint mod for dead tanks illegal across some servers? I don't see how it gives an advantage. I've never used it, just find it odd.

 

Question: Can we use mods that change the color of destroyed tanks?

  • Answer: Yes, you can use mods that change the color of destroyed tanks.


Palladius__ #36 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:48

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14510 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015

I posted this in a modified form on the original thread today.  The odd answer today goes against their own stated position on the Fair Play Policy statement.

 

Autoaim + (let's call it autolock +) is exactly the way autoaim or autolock works in console, you can lock onto a target without direct line of sight, through a building, etc. Most of the changes WG have implemented to WOT PC is making it closer to console so it seems likely they will add this to the vanilla and there is no reason why they should object to this mod in the meanwhile until they actually add it. It would be kind of screwed up for them to ban people for using a mod that they offer as a feature on console.  So what gives today? Does the right hand not speak to the left there?

 

I would say Autoaim + falls under what is listed in the Fair Play Policy post as "Mods that provide a gameplay advantage in what we believe to be a positive way. These will be considered "good" for the time being, and may even inspire official game features."

 

The wording of WGNA's own Fair Play Policy post on the website states under forbidden mods, "Auto-aim, or “aimbots” that provide more functionality than the “aim lock” in the vanilla client, specifically those that aim at the enemy's weak spots or automatically lead the aim so the offending player can focus on maneuvering their tank."  Autoaim+ doesn't do that.

 

It would help for WG to say the mod is considered "good" for the time being until it's added to the PC game like it is in console instead of the bizarre statement that started this thread.



MDrop #37 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 28733 battles
  • 22
  • [LOAD] LOAD
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

View PostGhostPrime, on Nov 15 2016 - 19:48, said:

Question: The ability to lock onto a target that isn’t highlighted, is that illegal?
  • Answer: This is now considered a cheat.

 

If I do understand it corectly.... a mod that allow you to snap a target near your reticle but still use the OME auto-aim functionality of the game is now illegal?



dnaman #38 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25087 battles
  • 474
  • [_EOS_] _EOS_
  • Member since:
    06-09-2013

View PostWAWps4, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:35, said:

Q: How is arty considered a fair play mechanic?

Q: What will you do about arty players that drown at the end of battles when their team is going to lose?

I would love to see the enemy team get points counted toward damage of drowned tanks.  It would take away some of the incentive to drown yourself.



vaxHack #39 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17688 battles
  • 639
  • [-M1-] -M1-
  • Member since:
    02-28-2014

View PostPalladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 14:48, said:

I posted this in a modified form on the original thread today.  The odd answer today goes against their own stated position on the Fair Play Policy statement.

 

Autoaim + (let's call it autolock +) is exactly the way autoaim or autolock works in console, you can lock onto a target without direct line of sight, through a building, etc. Most of the changes WG have implemented to WOT PC is making it closer to console so it seems likely they will add this to the vanilla and there is no reason why they should object to this mod in the meanwhile until they actually add it. It would be kind of screwed up for them to ban people for using a mod that they offer as a feature on console.  So what gives today? Does the right hand not speak to the left there?

 

I would say Autoaim + falls under what is listed in the Fair Play Policy post as "Mods that provide a gameplay advantage in what we believe to be a positive way. These will be considered "good" for the time being, and may even inspire official game features."

 

The wording of WGNA's own Fair Play Policy post on the website states under forbidden mods, "Auto-aim, or “aimbots” that provide more functionality than the “aim lock” in the vanilla client, specifically those that aim at the enemy's weak spots or automatically lead the aim so the offending player can focus on maneuvering their tank."  Autoaim+ doesn't do that.

 

It would help for WG to say the mod is considered "good" for the time being until it's added to the PC game like it is in console instead of the bizarre statement that started this thread.

 

You are speculating that they will implement it into Vanilla. There is no evidence they will do so.

In the meantime, this statement today specifically clears up the confusion. You can call it a "good mod" all you want, but WG has finally said that it is illegal, and since WG makes the decision on who gets banned, I suggest you get on board.


 



Palladius__ #40 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:58

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14510 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015

View PostMDrop, on Nov 15 2016 - 21:50, said:

 

If I do understand it corectly.... a mod that allow you to snap a target near your reticle but still use the OME auto-aim functionality of the game is now illegal?

 

Apparently. They want you to use the broken vanilla or switch to console where it's already a feature.





Also tagged with fair Play, Mods

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users