Jump to content


Fair Play Policy Q&A

fair Play Mods

  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

Scorpiany #81 Posted Nov 15 2016 - 23:48

    Major

  • Game Knowledge Expert
  • 34956 battles
  • 12,843
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

View PostBravo4zero, on Nov 15 2016 - 14:27, 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.

 

In the past, Auto-Aim Plus would allow you to lock onto vehicles which were not highlighted. However, there are now "legal" versions of it called "Auto-Aim Indicator", which tell you who you've locked on to, but don't allow you to lock on without highlighting the vehicle.

 

As for zoom out mod, that requires more work on your behalf, plus it takes your focus away from the tank itself. Not only that, you must already be in a position where there is not cover directly blocking your camera's angles, as the camera is still fixed onto your vehicle; regardless of how far you are zooming out.

 

Hence, it still takes extra effort and time for you to lock on in this way. Auto-Aim plus would allow you to point in someone's general direction and be locked immediately, which when fighting multiple opponents at the same time, or having very little time to react to an opponent's move, could prove to be quite advantageous.



Holo_ #82 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 1118 battles
  • 534
  • Member since:
    06-12-2015

View PostMudman24, on Nov 15 2016 - 17:24, 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.  

 

I'm with muddy here, I don't recall any changes to autoaim and cannot find any patchnotes regarding such

Mokoma #83 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 14539 battles
  • 2,996
  • Member since:
    03-25-2015
How does telling the player that received a ban what mod they received it for, in any possible way compromise the detection system? If you're going to have this harsh of a system (which I don't disagree with), then you should be informing the player of the specifics of their infraction. I cannot at all understand why you would choose not to do so. Especially with a system without any appeal or recourse. That's just poor transparency.

Nevertheless, thank you for (finally) giving some clarification. However, this should really be a main page article, not a forum thread that many non-forum-users will miss entirely.

Turmoilx #84 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 65329 battles
  • 389
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012
please do a server merge we need more players

Fodder_2016 #85 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:23

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 12279 battles
  • 442
  • Member since:
    01-23-2016

View PostLord_Hiney, on Nov 16 2016 - 00:14, said:

How does telling the player that received a ban what mod they received it for, in any possible way compromise the detection system? If you're going to have this harsh of a system (which I don't disagree with), then you should be informing the player of the specifics of their infraction. I cannot at all understand why you would choose not to do so.
 

 

Perhaps the system isn't capable (yet) of detecting all mods, hence WG not wanting to be transparent about what's being detected. Could also be a good bluff in order to buy time to further develop the system or just throw mod makers/users off balance.

Guest_Heldar_* #86 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:27

  • Guest
Took waaaay too long to get a straight answer, but thank you guys for actually providing one, finally.

Palladius__ #87 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 17322 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015

View PostHeldar, on Nov 16 2016 - 00:27, said:

Took waaaay too long to get a straight answer, but thank you guys for actually providing one, finally.

 

Yes, it did, especially since the staff at the SEA server quite explicitly said it was a legal mod some time ago. Glad they're all on the same page. :-/

Bavor #88 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 00:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 32641 battles
  • 3,080
  • [REL-A] REL-A
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostRin_, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:59, said:

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.

 

Have you tried the auto aim in the vanilla WoT client?  I can be aiming at a stationary tank and it still takes several clicks to lock on.  Its broken.  I remember it use to work much better several years ago when I started playing the game.

Palladius__ #89 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:07

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 17322 battles
  • 55
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015

View PostBavor, on Nov 16 2016 - 00:52, said:

 

Have you tried the auto aim in the vanilla WoT client?  I can be aiming at a stationary tank and it still takes several clicks to lock on.  Its broken.  I remember it use to work much better several years ago when I started playing the game.

 

If they don't want it to lock onto tanks behind hills or buildings like console does they should at least expand the space around an enemy tank that you can lock onto. Clicking on just the outline (and it only works sometimes in vanilla even when dead center) just doesn't cut it. They screwed up with this decision.

Rin_ #90 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17710 battles
  • 3,100
  • [GSKYO] GSKYO
  • Member since:
    11-11-2015

View PostBavor, on Nov 16 2016 - 00:52, said:

Have you tried the auto aim in the vanilla WoT client?  I can be aiming at a stationary tank and it still takes several clicks to lock on.  Its broken.  I remember it use to work much better several years ago when I started playing the game.

Yeah I have tried it, and it works fine for me. I never used Autoaim+ because it never felt like I needed it. I was always confused why someone even bothered make a mod when the normal aiming function works fine. 



Gunadie #91 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 42499 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostTolos, on Nov 15 2016 - 12:01, said:

At last...took long enough. Finally we know about aa+

 

No, your just to impatient. (as well as a lot others)

At least they have provided some clarity!



Gunadie #92 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 42499 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

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

 

 

 

Sorry this cheat has been removed for good reason

No to AUTO AIM +

Remove server version above tier 3



Gunadie #93 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 42499 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostThe_Illusive_Man, on Nov 15 2016 - 12:26, said:

How about these mods?

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

Spoiler

 

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

 

 

Not allowed

Allowed...NOT

Not allowed

Not


Edited by Gunadie, Nov 16 2016 - 01:25.


Gunadie #94 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 42499 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostPalladius__, on Nov 15 2016 - 12:48, 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.

 

SORRY, remove this cheat as well!!

Learn to aim without it.



Gunadie #95 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 42499 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostKiller_Slush, on Nov 15 2016 - 13:09, said:

 

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.
 

 

JUST SAY NO TO AIMBOTS!

Gunadie #96 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 42499 battles
  • 4,876
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostHans_von_Twitchy, on Nov 15 2016 - 13:37, said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

​If you have any doubt as to the legality of a mod its up to the PLAYER to enquire before they install it!

There's your clarification!



Hans_von_Twitchy #97 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 40067 battles
  • 994
  • [FUWG] FUWG
  • Member since:
    04-12-2014

View PostGunadie, on Nov 16 2016 - 01:33, said:

​If you have any doubt as to the legality of a mod its up to the PLAYER to enquire before they install it!

There's your clarification!

 

You had a reading comprehension fail.

 

I wrote "If the player base sees that players are being banned for running mods that they genuinely thought were legal"  They didn't have any doubt.

 

I am sometimes astonished by WG's decisions. For example, I thought Autoaim Indication+ was and should be legal. I've been running it for months on that belief despite consciously avoiding every mod that I thought might be illegal. I'm astonished that WG has decided to ban it, and upset too because as an oldish guy, my reflexes and eyesight have deteriorated. I very much enjoyed WoT's being a game that was about developing mental skills, rather than being about physical reflexes. My enjoyment of the game is reduced now (because I immediately uninstalled AAI+).



Burning_Haggis #98 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 01:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 44369 battles
  • 1,778
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View PostChillsau, on Nov 15 2016 - 15:25, 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.

 

because they said assistant was fine, and they said AA+ isn't.   so uninstall it

Guest_Heldar_* #99 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 02:13

  • Guest

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

 

because they said assistant was fine, and they said AA+ isn't.   so uninstall it

 

He has a point though.  Both give arguable degrees of functionality and benefits from use.  The idea that one is ok and the other isnt is laughable.  hell ill argue till im blue in the face that battle assistant is MUCH MORE impactful that AA+ has ever been.  But im not a dev, so whatever.

Mausle #100 Posted Nov 16 2016 - 02:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12123 battles
  • 335
  • [M-I-T] M-I-T
  • Member since:
    12-30-2013

It's not a question of where he grips it!

It's a simple question of weight ratios!

A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

 







Also tagged with fair Play, Mods

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users