Jump to content


Fair Play Policy Q&A

fair Play Mods

  • Please log in to reply
382 replies to this topic

Palladius__ #41 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:59

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14023 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015

View PostvaxHack, on Nov 15 2016 - 21:56, said:

 

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.


 

 

Deleted it after reading the post.

Rin_ #42 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 21:59

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17291 battles
  • 2,995
  • Member since:
    11-11-2015

View PostPalladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 21:48, 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.

Unlike console games, you can accurately aim on a PC without the built in aiming assists that come at every level. It's not unreasonable to assume they won't be implementing it at all seeing as the game supports mouse and keyboard.

The specifically crap is just grasping at straws. They said you can't have it.



Holo_ #43 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:00

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 1059 battles
  • 534
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015

I like the clarification, and have no worries about strikes because vanilla :D

 

I see the two trolls are doing their standard fare



Perma_Chatbanned_Hacker #44 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 15040 battles
  • 2,997
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    03-09-2014
Triggered

Commodore_Krunk #45 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:08

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10337 battles
  • 386
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    03-10-2015

Question - I do not have have an autoaim mod..I am using the vanilla version.  So when I try to autoaim on a silhouetted target , behind a rock lets say, it doesn't lock today.  With autoaim+, I would be able to lock on the said silhouetted target behind the rock?

 

Thanks

C_K


Edited by Commodore_Krunk, Nov 15 2016 - 22:08.


PrivateStash #46 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:09

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20557 battles
  • 160
  • [SSGS] SSGS
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011

love the attempt to squash the cheating, but not telling someone which mod they used is illegal, as clear as WG might think their guidelines were stated, is just stupid. trying to protect your detection methods or not.



Killer_Slush #47 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7388 battles
  • 1,202
  • Member since:
    07-03-2012

View PostPalladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:48, said:

 

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?.

 

The PC and console gave have two different sets of developers and moderators, meaning they are allowed to have two different sets of rules.

 

Console has an autolock for the same reason console FPS games have an autolock feature, the sticks on a controller lack the sensitivity to aim precisely. PC tanks, just like PC FPSs, do not have autolock because a mouse gives you the sensitivity required to make the fine adjustments to your aim.
 



kebab6597 #48 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 51873 battles
  • 8,260
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011

At last some clarity over the AA+ mod thanks GhostPrime for the heads up 

 

If WG would just implement a session stats counter covering wins/losses and a Jimbo,s style reticule I would have no need for any mods at all  



Chillsau #49 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27739 battles
  • 398
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    08-04-2012
I would like an explanation as to how Battle Assistant is fine but Autoaim+ is not. Battle Assistant allows you to do some things that you literally cannot do in the vanilla game due to how the arti reticle interacts with terrain and objects. Autoaim+ simply allows you to snap to a distant target without requiring superhuman reflexes to successfully pixel hunt.

madxbrad13 #50 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 20267 battles
  • 115
  • [LOAD] LOAD
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011
Time to delete AA+ then 

Lieutenant_Lurch #51 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 35998 battles
  • 45
  • [GEMS] GEMS
  • Member since:
    02-28-2013

Question: What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

 

 

PS - I'm sorry, couldn't help myself.  Thanks for the clarifications!



riff_ #52 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 24891 battles
  • 7,880
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View PostThe_Illusive_Man, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:26, said:

How about these mods?

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

Spoiler

 

9.16 Chameleon Customization By Gox  ​I believe yes because it identifies weak area 's or area's that you should/should not shoot at.  Also believe it was mentioned before.  The hit box modification.  But I may be wrong.

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

 

 



lbgsloan #53 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 20739 battles
  • 3,369
  • Member since:
    04-01-2012

Thank you for the clarification.  That's that for AA+ I guess.

 

As for other mods I think a lot of people would like to see the stat portion of XVM made illegal at this point.  It has only ever caused grief.



Scorpiany #54 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:32

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 29493 battles
  • 10,686
  • [N1NJA] N1NJA
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

View PostKiller_Slush, on Nov 15 2016 - 12:09, said:

Can we get a clarification on what exactly defines a reload timer?

 

Some mods display an enemies actual reload factoring equipment, consumables, and crew skill and allow you to see when they are reloading. These are clearly illegal. The gray area is mods that display the statistics for vehicles such as damage, pen, and the base reload. Something like this could be useful for a player that is new to the game and trying to learn how to combat enemy tanks.

 

If it just says how long it will take to reload, without actually counting down for you, then it's fine.

 

Here's the key difference - A reload timer allows you to see how much time you have to shoot an enemy, without you actually having to pay attention to the battlefield.

However, if you have a mod which just states that a T30 is likely to have a 16 second reload, then there's no problem with it - Because it doesn't tell you when the T30 fired, not does it let you make movements without paying attention. This means that it's useless unless you're actually paying attention to the battle.

 

That falls under the classification of "ease of information", which WG has stated is alright. So long as it's not doing something entirely for you, it's fine. You're still the one responsible for watching for when the T30 fires, and for counting the seconds yourself, tracking your own reload, etc. An animated reload timer would do that work for you. A raw information mod does not.



Palladius__ #55 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:36

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 14023 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015

View PostChillsau, on Nov 15 2016 - 22:25, said:

I would like an explanation as to how Battle Assistant is fine but Autoaim+ is not. Battle Assistant allows you to do some things that you literally cannot do in the vanilla game due to how the arti reticle interacts with terrain and objects. Autoaim+ simply allows you to snap to a distant target without requiring superhuman reflexes to successfully pixel hunt.

 

View PostChillsau, on Nov 15 2016 - 22:25, said:

I would like an explanation as to how Battle Assistant is fine but Autoaim+ is not. Battle Assistant allows you to do some things that you literally cannot do in the vanilla game due to how the arti reticle interacts with terrain and objects. Autoaim+ simply allows you to snap to a distant target without requiring superhuman reflexes to successfully pixel hunt.

 

It's true, arty is almost unplayable without BA, whereas AA+ was pretty limited in its usefulness.

Hans_von_Twitchy #56 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 38790 battles
  • 876
  • [-R-O-] -R-O-
  • Member since:
    04-12-2014

View PostGhostPrime, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:48, said:

Hello Tankers,

 

I hope this clears up some of the confusion. 

 

Question: Why not just get rid of all mods?

  • Answer: We love mods, we just find some of the mods functions create an unfair advantage, which is why you’ll see us talking about functionality instead of specific mods.

 

Dear WG,

 

I love the idea of cheaters being banned, and welcome this development eagerly, but your "which is why you’ll see us talking about functionality instead of specific mods" is going to cause MASSIVE anger.

 

When any form of government/authority (as WG is for its game) inflicts harsh punishment upon someone under its jurisdiction, it had better make damned sure that the punishment's justification is well known and fully understood. Punishing people for offenses which are not well known or not understood causes major upset and backlash.

 

WG is infamous for being absolutely pathetic at writing clear, concise, unambiguous English text. (Your company seriously needs to hire at least one good Technical Writer, and he/she has to put a major effort into training all of you who produce text that your players read.) Ghost, you know from the past forum posts about the new anti-cheating policy that players are drawing all sorts of conclusions from WG's poorly worded policy text. I cannot imagine that the final policy will be worded any better, because I have never read anything from anyone at WG which struck me as being written by a skilled crafter of the English language.

 

When you start banning people for using a mod that they interpreted your policy as allowing, but you interpreted your policy as banning, then the forum is going to be deluged with rants from those people who have been banned, followed by page after page of arguments about whether or not specific mods are legal or illegal. WG is going to anger a very large proportion of your user base (pretty much everyone who uses more than a couple of mods).

 

You MUST be specific about what mods are illegal! You MUST list them by name and by exact description, so people will know with 100% certainty whether or not they are allowed to run that mod.

 

You might think this sounds like more work that just releasing a policy statement, but believe me, your company will have to do a great deal more work if you release yet another poorly worded, inexact, interpretable-every-which-way policy. In particular, your marketing department will have to do a huge amount of extra work trying to find new customers to replace all the ones who got so angry at your company's arbitrary punishments that they left the game.

 

If the player base sees that players are being banned for running mods that they genuinely thought were legal -- because your policy was not specific enough -- then every mod-using player in your community is going to think about no longer spending money on your game, in fear that their money will be lost because you suddenly decided that one of their mods was illegal.

 

Tread very carefully here, because if you mess this up, it could do a great deal of damage to your company.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Hans_von_Twitchy, Nov 15 2016 - 23:17.


PrivateStash #57 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:43

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20557 battles
  • 160
  • [SSGS] SSGS
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011

View PostLieutenant_Lurch, on Nov 15 2016 - 22:28, said:

Question: What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

 

 

PS - I'm sorry, couldn't help myself.  Thanks for the clarifications!

 

african or european?

 



Fodder_2016 #58 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:45

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10212 battles
  • 367
  • Member since:
    01-23-2016

View Poststinkybean60, on Nov 15 2016 - 21:13, said:

 

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.

 

Makes it easier to spot live tanks hiding behind dead hulks.

Killer_Slush #59 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7388 battles
  • 1,202
  • Member since:
    07-03-2012

View PostScorpiany, on Nov 15 2016 - 17:32, said:

 

If it just says how long it will take to reload, without actually counting down for you, then it's fine.

 

This is basically what I have told some other players when they asked about reload timers. Since I have seen the question a few times I figured it would be nice to get a concrete definition since "reload timer" can be interpreted in several ways. Would be nice to see the original post say something like "Are reload timers illegal? If they actively count down for you, yes. If they are a static display of the base reload, no."



Gomez_Adams #60 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 22:47

    Major

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

View PostPrivateStash, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:43, said:

 

african or european?

 

 

European of course. African swallows are non-migratory.





Also tagged with fair Play, Mods

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users