It was outdoor hunting I had in mind, right. I agree that missions would be extremely difficult to code for. Outdoor hunting would be hard but not impossible to code; I have afew thoughts on how you could do it but would prefer not to share because of the danger someone that might actually implement it.Originally posted by Octo
Combat macros for AO would be next to impossible for mission-combat (since missions are always different in layout). Outside hunting would be abit easier, but to make something that can fight in for example a dynacamp and at the same time use nanos and healthpacks when hes not aggroed.... I don't think so.
Clicksaver does exactly this, despite the EULA's warning. I consider it an invaluable tool, and not an exploit at all. I'll freely admit to using Clicksaver, and if that gets me banned then it's on to the next game I guess. My point is that there are constructive exceptions to the EULA like Clicksaver and Damage Dumper, and then there are apps that can and should be banned like tradeskills and combat macroing.Originally posted by Octo
Also, making a combat macro program would most certainly require the program to access the client-server datastream which is a bannable offence in itself. Maybe it would require to use some of the DLLs too, which the EULA clearly says you aren't allowed to.
On this we agree; I think you're right that it has happened before and will likely happen again. However, I do not think that it therefore follows that all must be penalized for these actions. Ban those who do it! Don't nerf everyone because of a few rotten apples.Originally posted by Octo
User-input only programs, which are ideal for tradeskill-macroing, are easy to make in for instance Visual Basic, and don't require any interpretation of AO data. It would just need to know what key to push and what mousebutton to click. Several instances in the past have shown that tradeskill xp has been exploited in the past, so there is no reason to belive that that won't happen in the future. For instance, if you've been around for a while you would maybe have heard about the "Company" that made it into a business to level characters and sell them on eBay. Those used user-input macro programs to level chars to level 100 in a few hours, apparently using pixel detection.
Exploiting is a fact of life in any MMORPG. There are plenty of combat exploits out there right now! I do not condone them, but I also do not think it's appropriate to nerf combat XP just because it's exploted and exploitable. It follows then that the same reasoning should apply to tradeskills.Originally posted by Octo
What you are saying here, is that you want to be able to level without combat and because of that you are willing to ignore the ones that level chars by exploiting. To me it seems almost like saying that exploiting is ok as long as you don't have to do combat.
It does increase the incentive, admittedly. However, I still come back to the same point that even if some people take unfair advantage of the increased xp, the damage to the community is less than the damage done by continuing with nerfed xp for tradeskills. It is a net gain for the community to have a more robust tradeskill avenue, exploiters or no. By the way, I'm an atrox enforcer so unless I can build something by jamming my beam into it, I doubt that I personally will be doing tradeskills any time soon. It's not for myself that I'm advocating this, but for all the people for whom combat is a secondary concern in the game.Originally posted by Octo
But what it all boils down to is that FunCom must consider the point that I brought forward, and that increasing xp from tradeskills ultimately depends on wheter or not they can implement a tradeskill anti-exploiting system. If they are uncertain if exploiting might occur on a larger scale it would be better to leave the xp as it is now and not change it.
Im sure you realize what problems FunCom would have with increased exploiting if xp is increased?
On implementing an anti-exploiting system, what do you think of my earlier proposal? That would be to add a point in the EULA that you must be reachable by an ARK or GM at any given time you are online. If you do not respond and it's clear that your toon is doing something, The GM or ARK can pretty easily see if you are perfoming multiple continued repetitive actions. Accounts that show this Macro behavior should be given a warning and then banned the second time.
