398 replies to this topic

[CavScout19D]

Killer_Slush, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:45, said:

 

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."

 

If a number is static, how is it a timer?

[Fodder_2016]

"We don’t provide any details on when a player was detected or what kind of cheat was detected because we don’t want to compromise our detection methods."

 

That's a very interesting answer.  I suppose no detection method is invulnerable to bypass, but the number of methods to do this cannot be infinite, correct?

[Lieutenant_Lurch]

PrivateStash, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:43, said:

 

african or european?

 

 

Huh? I , I don't know that........(thrown off the bridge in Westfield)

[Killer_Slush]

CavScout19D, on Nov 15 2016 - 17:47, said:

 

If a number is static, how is it a timer?

 

Speaking literally, a static display would not be a timer. The problem is that there are a lot of people that do not speak literally, leading to them calling a static reload stat display a reload timer. If we want this policy to be enforced correctly, we need to make sure things are spelled out in ways that everyone can understand.

[strenfoo]

Palladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 14:48, 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?

 

That's probably because you're using a controller when playing on a console and thus don't have the precision a mouse offers.  This is no different than lots of FPS games where console versions have a lock-on button and PC versions don't.

 

Palladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 14:48, said:

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.

 

The "specifically" clause doesn't matter.  That whole thing about auto aim related mods, and everything else listed, are just a bunch of examples of what's banned.  It's not an exhaustive list.  Wargaming can ban whatever mod they want if they think it negatively impacts the game, even if it has nothing to do with the examples they listed.

Edited by strenfoo, Nov 15 2016 - 22:55.

[Commodore_Krunk]

CavScout19D, on Nov 15 2016 - 13:47, said:

 

If a number is static, how is it a timer?

 

LOL

[CavScout19D]

Killer_Slush, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:52, said:

 

Speaking literally, a static display would not be a timer. The problem is that there are a lot of people that do not speak literally, leading to them calling a static reload stat display a reload timer. If we want this policy to be enforced correctly, we need to make sure things are spelled out in ways that everyone can understand.

 

It is easy for everyone to understand. No one would call a number written on a chalk board a stop-watch just because it is a number. 

[LeaveIT2Beaver]

Mudman24, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:35, said:

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

 

I see you are talking about yourself again. Give yourself a break crybaby and go run your mods that you bought

Edited by LeaveIT2Beaver, Nov 15 2016 - 22:57.

[TheGame_]

Gomez_Adams, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:40, said:

 

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.

 

I dont think u understand friend. Let me clarify.

 

1. Someone doesnt have to use a cheat mod to beat you. A lot of players can...just beat you. Because they are better. For example, how many ppl youve reported or sent in replays on have been banned? I would wager 0. I get called for "hacking" (which is laughable because its not possible) all the time, and I take it as a compliment...means I must be really good in their eyes.

 

2. If it was "RIFE" there would be threads on it already. 

 

3. I never said it wasnt a problem. I said it wasnt "RIFE". Please, stop backpeddaling and putting words in peoples mouth to justify your own errors.

 

I stand against false posting.

[Blad3fire]

Would it not simply be much better for everyone if modders submitted their mods to WG and WG tests to see if they are OK, and includes them as optional settings within the game and allows no others? That way, there is no question about what is legal or illegal and players can cherry pick their preferred mods without any danger of getting banned.

[Insurrectional_Leftist]

b00merBoy, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:46, said:

 

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.

 

Good one. their more interested in hiding the color of their stats.  good catch boomer....

[Killer_Slush]

CavScout19D, on Nov 15 2016 - 17:54, said:

 

It is easy for everyone to understand. No one would call a number written on a chalk board a stop-watch just because it is a number. 

 

Yet I have seen people call a static reload display a reload timer. Here is a thread where several people are confused by what is meant by "reload timer".

 

http://forum.worldof...5#entry10526145

[Palladius__]

Scorpiany, on Nov 15 2016 - 22:32, said:

 

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.

 

Regular XVM now comes with a reload counter as standard, telling you the reload of any tank that has hit you. So is XVM banned?

[Mudman24]

LeaveIT2Beaver, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:57, said:

 

I see you are talking about yourself again. Give yourself a break crybaby and go run your mods that you bought

What this means I will probably never know. I run vanilla and you would have to be pretty dumb to pay for mods since they are free.  

[Insurrectional_Leftist]

vaxHack, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:56, 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.

 

 

Then I suggest look at the 1st page of this thread where people are suggesting putting the original "Vanilla" Auto Aim function back intact the way it used to be to begin with when it used to be useful and worth a damn to begin with.  Right now it's not worth even spit. The Devs need to work on it, seriously.  Others as well have called for this. I remember when it was working correctly, as of date now, it is not.  Not at all, to be honest.

[Fodder_2016]

Blad3fire, on Nov 15 2016 - 23:10, said:

Would it not simply be much better for everyone if modders submitted their mods to WG and WG tests to see if they are OK, and includes them as optional settings within the game and allows no others? That way, there is no question about what is legal or illegal and players can cherry pick their preferred mods without any danger of getting banned.

 

That's extra time and expense on WG's part, and it doesn't contribute to the bottom line any better than just issuing rules.

[Insurrectional_Leftist]

Palladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:58, said:

 

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

 

As I just got done posting the current Vanilla auto aim is utterly worthless.  I remember with it used to work far, far, better than what it does now.  The Dev's have to do something to fix Vanilla auto aim or something?  It's just garbage what it is now.  It used to be far better than what it used to be now.  Some one needs to contact them.

[Mudman24]

Insurrectional_Leftist, on Nov 15 2016 - 16:19, said:

 

As I just got done posting the current Vanilla auto aim is utterly worthless.  I remember with it used to work far, far, better than what it does now.  The Dev's have to do something to fix Vanilla auto aim or something?  It's just garbage what it is now.  It used to be far better than what it used to be now.  Some one needs to contact them.

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.  

[Bravo4zero]

GhostPrime, on Nov 15 2016 - 20:48, said:

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

• Answer: This is now considered a cheat.

 

Question: Can I use a mod that allows me to zoom out more?

• Answer: Yes, you can use a mod which allows you to zoom out further from your own tank.

 

Palladius__, 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.

 

Q. Does auto-aim+ allow you to auto-aim onto tanks that aren't viewed i.e. NOT highlighted (spotted)? If not then presumably this is ok?

Q. I highlighted the question regarding "zooming out" because as this is legal, presumably you can look over houses/rocks to see the tank. If this is the case, surely you'd then be able to use the vanilla auto-aim to select it. I assume that auto-aim + simply allows you to select the tank behind the rock without having to do all of that?

 

It's my understanding that auto-aim+ locks onto the tank in the same way as the vanilla auto-aim does i.e. to center-mass of the tank. Therefore is there really any advantage?

 

Just some food for thought and perhaps input from GhostPrime?

 

I'm all for getting rid of the hacks/cheats and am glad that WG are trying to try make this a little more of a level playing field.

[pokezfan93]

Bravo4zero, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:27, said:

 

Q. Does auto-aim+ allow you to auto-aim onto tanks that aren't viewed i.e. NOT highlighted (spotted)? If not then presumably this is ok?

Q. I highlighted the question regarding "zooming out" because as this is legal, presumably you can look over houses/rocks to see the tank. If this is the case, surely you'd then be able to use the vanilla auto-aim to select it. I assume that auto-aim + simply allows you to select the tank behind the rock without having to do all of that?

 

It's my understanding that auto-aim+ locks onto the tank in the same way as the vanilla auto-aim does i.e. to center-mass of the tank. Therefore is there really any advantage?

 

Just some food for thought and perhaps input from GhostPrime?

 

I'm all for getting rid of the hacks/cheats and am glad that WG are trying to try make this a little more of a level playing field.

 

Q1: no, it doesn't allow you to snap on to targets that are not lit.  it does allow you to snap to targets behind objects..houses, rocks, etc.. but if they are behind an object, even if they are spotted, I don't think they are highlighted.  if they were you'd be able to see which way the tank was facing etc..

 

Q2: how this is even considered good for the game is beyond me.  seems like this would give an unfair advantage since you could then see which way enemy tank is facing, gun is facing, etc. 

 

seems like these two by themselves contradict what WG is trying to do by creating "Fair Play"..

Edited by pokezfan93, Nov 15 2016 - 23:47.