Monthly Development Update - 28th February 2014

[Timetraveler2001]

Some players still have items they shouldn't not have. The most openly talked recently is likely not correct QL Doctor Ofab Special Edition Helmets.

Well some people or that handful of people who cheat in a computer game are those who are against this then. They still want the inspect to be denied i guess.
But again i could not care less about them or what others are wearing. It is of no matter.

[Traderjill]

Some players still have items they shouldn't not have. The most openly talked recently is likely not correct QL Doctor Ofab Special Edition Helmets.

Weren't those helmets legitimately obtained from the ofab vendor? If people are wearing them, I wouldn't see that as an issue because funcom could have just removed the non-ql 300 helms from the database or better yet turned them into some sort of social item and allowed manual VP refunds via help tickets. I know people that have them and I just figured that funcom left them in and they just turned into yet another item that you could get at one time and can no longer obtain. Or am I remembering the situation incorrectly?

[Anna]

I am not sure whether I erred for brevity, but will try once again to express my concerns over the proposed changes.

1) I selected the open inspect as an example. I have similar long term concerns over most of the changes.
2) There have been some people who have been clamoring for open inspect of not just equipment, but of ncu and other equipment tabs since the advent of the social tab and optional inspect.
3) Several of the same people clamoring for this have also claimed inside information and influence with the development team. Now they are getting what they claimed there influence would achieve. Not saying such influence was or is real, just a concern.
4) the rational give for the open inspect it one no one really believes. It might have some credibility if funcom planned on devoting any resources to investigating exploit reports, but it seems they will have no resources to devote to that task. This leaves one to ask what the real reason might be for the change. Unfortunately, this also lends some additional credibility to item 3.
5) I absolutely could care less about the open inspect of equipment. Yes, there have always been equipment snobs in the game. Yes, there still are. Yes, some of these will not team people they think are underequipped or not in the preferred setup for the profession. Yes, this will make it easier for them. But such people have always been with us, so this is a nit. Will annoy some, cause some to quit the game (it did before so probably will again), but it is no worse to me then those who run a damage dump after every mob in a mission. I have quit teams where that was done. Annoying, but not likely to change a whole lot, human nature being what it is.

My concerns are two fold and more focused on the future of the game. The first is that these changes and the rational provided further damage the development team's credibility about the changes they are making and why. This in turns adds some weight to those who are of the opinion the they are at risk of abandoning the key role of impartiality in the development. Whether real or perceived, lack of game neutrality will destroy the game faster then anything else.

The second concern is that the changes to open inspect, along with those allowing third party programs will allow new programs that will read and analyze a targets equipment and ncu and automatically select the appropriate attacks. With the open inspect, this became much easier to do. While my programming skill are 2 decades out of date, I could probably still write such a program in a week or two and have no doubt it could be done much faster by current programmers. The changes therefore open the door to even more problems. And, given the response to third party programs, will take the game even further into the computer vs computer instead of pvm or pvp. Furthermore, I predict it will not be long before third parties, now that third party programs are allowed, will generate spoofing programs so that what the potential attacker sees is not what the "target" actually has on. Given the changes in the monthly, this type of development become highly likely, if not inevitable.

[Ekarona]

Weren't those helmets legitimately obtained from the ofab vendor? If people are wearing them, I wouldn't see that as an issue because funcom could have just removed the non-ql 300 helms from the database or better yet turned them into some sort of social item and allowed manual VP refunds via help tickets. I know people that have them and I just figured that funcom left them in and they just turned into yet another item that you could get at one time and can no longer obtain. Or am I remembering the situation incorrectly?

It's not really that simple. There is two items the low-QL and the hi-QL and stats of item is calculated between those(, just to note that some items have more than one range). So just removing one of these wouldn't work. And they probably can't search items on peoples account and remove them. So there really isn't any sensible fixes for this, which wouldn't effect the 300QL also...

[Brampfine]

i see it comming....

i know a 220 solitus Doctor who got equiped a "Ofab Silverback Mk 6"
he equip this gun before the development change it to "Trader only at MK6" before Xan addon !!!
he equipped years later after Xan Addon in a hard work his "Xan Alpha Symbs"
with at this time attracted "Trader Only" Gun !!! <- respect

skip to future:
a player inspect him and send petition "mimimi Trader only and he is a Doc"
GM read the Petition and log the Doc to undress the gun....
GM fondle petitioner and give him a candy with a "Sploider Hunter" shirt...

WTF

[Ekarona]

i see it comming....

i know a 220 solitus Doctor who got equiped a "Ofab Silverback Mk 6"
he equip this gun before the development change it to "Trader only at MK6"before Xan addon !!!
he equipped years later after Xan Addon in a hard work his "Xan Alpha Symbs"
with at this time attracted "Trader Only" Gun !!! <- respect

skip to future:
a player inspect him and send petition "mimimi Trader only and he is a Doc"
GM read the Petition and log the Doc to undress the gun....

WTF

On other hand you can already do that if you see the mesh of Silverback Mk 6 on non-trader...

[Traderjill]

It's not really that simple. There is two items the low-QL and the hi-QL and stats of item is calculated between those(, just to note that some items have more than one range). So just removing one of these wouldn't work. And they probably can't search items on peoples account and remove them. So there really isn't any sensible fixes for this, which wouldn't effect the 300QL also...

Ok, so let me preface my next statements with "I haven't seriously programmed since the late 90's."

You're telling me Funcom has no idea what items we have on our accounts? How is that even possible? I remember, many years ago, if you lost an item they'd send you a link to a webpage where you could see every item on that character as well as recently traded and deleted items. Has their database somehow taken a step backward?

Honestly a lot of things about this game confuse me (including why they need us to police people's equipment tabs.. I'd think a simple series of database queries should suffice). I know the devs have always spoken about how broken the code is and I've heard some weird rumors about how data is maintained but the thought that they have NO IDEA what items we have is confusing.

[Wakizaka]

On other hand you can already do that if you see the mesh of Silverback Mk 6 on non-trader...

There's no playshift req on it, so no you can't.

[Emma]

Hi guys,

The upcoming 18.7 patch (targeted for Tuesday next week on the closed beta server) has a fairly extensive list of system changes:

- We will enable everyone to see friendly nano programs in their opponent's NCU. This is to level the playing field for people who do not have access to 3rd party programs which provide this information.

- We will disable the ability to decline inspects. We fully expect this to lead to an increase in the number of exploit reports that we receive and a decrease in the actual exploiting.


Alright guys, thanks for listening. Hopefully once we have had our planning meeting, Genele will have all sorts of juicy plans to share with you next month!

Joel Bylos

So, in other words you do not have the resources to police third-party programs such as the one that allows some to see everything running in an opponent's ncu. Therefore you are allowing all of us to see friendly nano programs along with the hostile ones we can already see.

How is it that you do not have the resources to stop third-party programs ... but you do have the resources to address all the newly anticipated exploit reports you have stated you want to encourage by opening the inspect function?

I sounds to me like you have a different agenda that you are not willing to provide?

Allowing us to see friendly programs in another's ncu will not "level" the playing field ... it will only make it easier for others with current and/or new third-party programs to have even more advantages over the rest of us.

Instead of effectively saying it is perfectly OK to have third-party programs that assist in game-play ... and if you program more we will adjust the game accordingly to "level" the playing field yet again ...

Why don't you stop the use of this "see all ncu" third-party program?

And tell us the real reason you want to force open inspection ... as it seems clear that it isn't because you think we will all become your unpaid inspectors turning in exploit reports on a daily basis.

Emma

[Leetlover]

While their at it they can also update nanoeffects to imply what happens, so we not have 2 read in small windows while we play.

The second concern is that the changes to open inspect, along with those allowing third party programs will allow new programs that will read and analyze a targets equipment and ncu and automatically select the appropriate attacks.

Similar tactics are already employed. Pvp-veterans pretty much now when and how to attack, and setups are pretty easy to learn. I don't know about you, but many of us just log in to AO to look for pvp-activity. Pvp-orientated players already die quite a bit due to gang-attacks or strategies derived from information that will be easier to aquire with the inspect-change. I think it will be ok.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but it seems some people have the wish to just stand still (when open to attacks from other players) like Bruce Lee, and then players gonna unstrategicly attack enmasse and just die to the counterattack/defence. It's not how AO-pvp outside duels most often is is in reality. You'll die a lot, or quite a bit at least and most often the fight wasn't fair. Not defining it, just stating facts here.

People have timers and often tell players from their own side when to attack. This (full inspect) just even the odds a little bit, and imo concealment (cus that is what will be gone for many) is more an agentfeature. One can say a lot about the the pvp-norms in AO and get into personality-conflicts, but the absolute intolerance and predjudice from the opposing side has been the fuel of AO-pvp since the beginning.

In pvm people don't have to spam ams-scripts (those who use it and know how to make them that is) and the doc/others will have more information to their tactical advantage. I see very little gamechanging things happening here, and not much negative.

I know the feeling of not having endgame-setup tho *blush* meh

[Leetlover]

So, in other words you do not have the resources to police third-party programs such as the one that allows some to see everything running in an opponent's ncu. Therefore you are allowing all of us to see friendly nano programs along with the hostile ones we can already see.

They can probably only ban the offenders, with very little evidence. I see this as a workaround to a too known exploit. I think it is best overall. To fight hackers I think customers needs more legal grounds to take action, cause we are the insulted.

[Gunforhire]

I am not sure whether I erred for brevity, but will try once again to express my concerns over the proposed changes.

1) I selected the open inspect as an example. I have similar long term concerns over most of the changes.
2) There have been some people who have been clamoring for open inspect of not just equipment, but of ncu and other equipment tabs since the advent of the social tab and optional inspect.
3) Several of the same people clamoring for this have also claimed inside information and influence with the development team. Now they are getting what they claimed there influence would achieve. Not saying such influence was or is real, just a concern.
4) the rational give for the open inspect it one no one really believes. It might have some credibility if funcom planned on devoting any resources to investigating exploit reports, but it seems they will have no resources to devote to that task. This leaves one to ask what the real reason might be for the change. Unfortunately, this also lends some additional credibility to item 3.
5) I absolutely could care less about the open inspect of equipment. Yes, there have always been equipment snobs in the game. Yes, there still are. Yes, some of these will not team people they think are underequipped or not in the preferred setup for the profession. Yes, this will make it easier for them. But such people have always been with us, so this is a nit. Will annoy some, cause some to quit the game (it did before so probably will again), but it is no worse to me then those who run a damage dump after every mob in a mission. I have quit teams where that was done. Annoying, but not likely to change a whole lot, human nature being what it is.

I just want to address one thing here. If you truly believe it when someone tells you they have inside influence on the developers I'll meet you in game so you can give me names. Just say so and I will give you my character to see in game. I'll petition that one for sure and see what happens because that is just so wrong it stinks if it's true. I don't believe it is true but give me names and we will see.

[Leetlover]

I just want to address one thing here. If you truly believe it when someone tells you they have inside influence on the developers I'll meet you in game so you can give me names. Just say so and I will give you my character to see in game. I'll petition that one for sure and see what happens because that is just so wrong it stinks if it's true. I don't believe it is true but give me names and we will see.

Professionals sometimes pursue their own agenda (lobbying and neglecting) with their friends.

[Antimony]

Well some people or that handful of people who cheat in a computer game are those who are against this then. They still want the inspect to be denied i guess.

Calling everyone a cheater who is against something you like is typical for mmos, but still wrong.
I'm happy to have a GM inspect me anytime, but not by every little moron here.

i see it comming....

skip to future:
a player inspect him and send petition "mimimi Trader only and he is a Doc"
GM read the Petition and log the Doc to undress the gun....
GM fondle petitioner and give him a candy with a "Sploider Hunter" shirt...

WTF

THIS!!!
I'm worried my twinks get falsly reported for stuff that was possible and legal years back.

I'm also worried that inspect will create more cheaters when people rush to the gold spammers to ungimp.

Yup prices will go up up up, I'm counting on it. But so what?
You failed if you don't know how to make creds since 2007. L2P or play something else!

Honestly I can't wait for inspect, all this carebear talks make me sick!
Whine, whine, whine! I can't get a team on lft! I can't find an org, whaaaa!
If you wouldn't be a baddie, some org would take you.
Then you wouldn't have to be on sucky lft with all the other scrubs.

Other people made excuses here, helping noobs lol, but they think the same thing.
I don't make excuses. Inspect is there to weed out all the baddies and that's a big plus!

So what if I call someone gimp or kick them from team? If they suck its the truth, live with it.
If they are undergeared in pvp, I'll gank them. That's what you do in MMOs, lol.
Only thing i disagree with is that Funcom wants us to find exploiters, that's bull.
But who cares as long as we finally get inspect!

And I don't care if the scrubs have to buy creds, its good that all these losers in bad gear can't hide anymore!

Gotta show some tough love here, jeez!

L2P, baddies, scrubs???
This MMO posterboy just validated everything everyone here has said against inspect.

You give a tool like inspect to him and people like him and they gonna use it in the worst possible way!
So yeah, maybe inspect really will poison the game.

[Gunforhire]

Professionals sometimes pursue their own agenda (lobbying and neglecting) with their friends.

And how does this prove that they are the reason for these upcoming changes?

[Traderjill]

You give a tool like inspect to him and people like him and they gonna use it in the worst possible way!
So yeah, maybe inspect really will poison the game.

What has developed in this game (to its detriment, in my opinion) is a bad case of entitlement. Somehow other players feel that it is their god given right to participate in content just because they exist and not based on their performance.

In your own post you state that people are going to rush to gold farmers to ungimp. This means you recognize that they're gimp to start. I choose to upgrade my toons as I level. I'd like to team with others who do or I'll solo. Pretty simple really. If someone can't be bothered to upgrade then they should team with people that are accepting of their lack of gear (see inspect opposition posts for names). However every public team or raid that I host has always and will continue to state "Must have up to date/level appropriate weapons, gear and nanos."

The standards that people have in this game have really fallen over the years or some people are forgetting that the defining attribute of anarchy online is twinking.

[Antimony]

What has developed in this game (to its detriment, in my opinion) is a bad case of entitlement. Somehow other players feel that it is their god given right to participate in content just because they exist and not based on their performance.

What you are really saying is "L2P scrubs", just like that WOW troll earlier?
After you posted all that smoke screen stuff about reputation and helping newbs with inspect, you are finally showing your true colors?

In your own post you state that people are going to rush to gold farmers to ungimp.

Hmm, so if "scrubs" gotta go to the gold spammers because of inspect, that's all cool because it's not cheating?
Dunno, the eula might not agree with you there.

[Tryptophy]

How is it that you do not have the resources to stop third-party programs ... but you do have the resources to address all the newly anticipated exploit reports you have stated you want to encourage by opening the inspect function?

As people have pointed out before, this is more or less impossible, even for companies loaded with cash. Any effort FC made to build into AO's client the ability to detect other running programs could be easily circumvented. I guess their alternative would be to completely change how the client knows what is running in other's NCU, and apparently they've decided they don't have the resources for that. But that is dev resources, not ARK resources.

FC has told us that they have a choice when it comes to the NCU window: allow exploits to continue, since there is no real way to tell when they are happening, or level the playing field by letting everyone see it. You can argue they painted themselves into this corner with the way they developed the client, but that doesn't change the situation any. By arguing against opening it up, you are effectively arguing for the status quo, which is to let the exploits continue.

Who can tell if they're lying about the choice they have to make? Only someone who has been in those meeting rooms where these things are discussed. No amount of speculation about incentives, conspiracies, etc. could ever prove anything.

[Grandpa]

By arguing against opening it up, you are effectively arguing for the status quo, which is to let the exploits continue.

Who can tell if they're lying about the choice they have to make? Only someone who has been in those meeting rooms where these things are discussed. No amount of speculation about incentives, conspiracies, etc. could ever prove anything.

I'm just going to ask you two easy questions:

1. Who is responsible to catch exploiters, FunCom or the paying customer?

2. How many exploiters will be caught with inspect AFTER they all read the patch notes right on the login screen?

I have much more respect for people who say they want inspect for the discriminatory tool that it is, than those who just invent reasons to hide behind.

[Mastablasta]

Well, you can argue that if said exploiters all remove their exploited gear because of it, then it doesnt matter whether there's an increase in reports or not the patch will have served its purpose.