Monthly Development Update - 2nd April 2014

[Xootch]

why do you keep posting like a madman in the update forums if you dont care? ...not that i care if you care...but just sayin.

[lunarsolace]

why do you keep posting like a madman in the update forums if you dont care? ...not that i care if you care...but just sayin.

Something like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1g9PFtSCKw&feature=kp

[Encyros]

yes. but:

1.no clear statement on the criticism of the update
2.no clear statement on the policy on multiboxing
3.no clear statement on the meeping story. instead, we are to realize by the announcement of an incoming fixer nerf that FC apparently goes with the ban-meep-at-towers side now.

1. They've stated that the criticism has been noted, and that it will be taken into account along with results from testing. Giving a concrete statement now on the different aspects raised would be superfluous prior to complete testing feedback.
Indeed, as some others have said, the statements of purpose given in the February update were probably a mistake (to give publicly).

2. The policy on multiboxing as far as simultaneous input is that it is allowed. I think they've made that quite clear. (I don't multibox nor even have non-mule alts)

3. They've noted that fixer meeps will now have a significant cooldown, and that the team meep is under review for deletion. I don't really see why they have to comment on the 'story'.

FC's public communications are often less professional than larger games companies but I don't see, in these three particular points, how the way they have acted is out of sync with usual developer statements elsewhere for good MMOs.

[Grandpa]

In a perfect world at most 1 out of 20 people who try AO will stay and play on. The rest are gone in a few days. Why? Because the present NPE is horrible, The graphics are not the eye candy they are looking for or when they get in game they do not receive any help from the game population.

Hardly any new player continues beyond level 60? True.
The present NPE is not very newbie friendly? True.
The graphics are outdated? True.

But new players do not receive any help from the game population?
Absolutely wrong!

A few weeks ago, I did a little test (sorry, if anyone feels deceived now).
I asked one question in all 3 OOC chats, while I was on my low froob bank toon:

"Where can I find John Smith?"

Within moments, I got the correct answer from all three factions, multiple times over!
One neutral guy even pm'ed me, gave me detailed instructions, and offered to meet me at Bor FT.

If AO would be like WOW, SWTOR, etc what would the responses look like?
In case my question wouldn't get ignored completely, the answers would likely be something like this:

"Inferno, lol"
"In your mother"
"Use the bleeping map, noob!"

Funny perhaps, but not very helpful to a new player.

Regardless what FC is doing or not doing, we, the AO community, ARE the NPE!

Instead of blaming the population, blame FC for not cleaning up after the exploiters.
Many new players I've talked to tell me the same thing:
"I give up, I will never make enough credits to get anything in this game!"

[Beornin]

Many new players I've talked to tell me the same thing:
"I give up, I will never make enough credits to get anything in this game!"

If someone tells me this, i reply:

"You can play the game just fine with a mix of OFAB, Enhanced Dustbrigade, Enhanced Jathos/Kegern and other nodrop and cheap items, and all of this will be quite easily available to you if you join an org and make some friends."

The main difference between AO and newer MMOs is that it's no fun playing AO if your goal is to solo all the way and become a PVP solo-machine.

[Phatkeep]

A few weeks ago, I did a little test (sorry, if anyone feels deceived now).
I asked one question in all 3 OOC chats, while I was on my low froob bank toon:

"Where can I find John Smith?"

Within moments, I got the correct answer from all three factions, multiple times over!
One neutral guy even pm'ed me, gave me detailed instructions, and offered to meet me at Bor FT.

This is my experience as well. If you are on a lowbie, newbie/poor looking toon, ppl will usually shower you with help and creds too. Just to help you get going.

What I would do to help newbies is to make sure they end up in a populated area once they leave noob island. I submit WA for instance was, when it was bustling with activity, a much better place than now when it's a dead ghost town. Some newbies probably quit before they even see another player on rk as is today.

Second problem is that there is no dungeon to go to after TOTW. I'd change Biomare, Coh and IS so that you can get to around 125 ish there, as a froob, without it taking years. I'd expand those dungeons quite a bit and add decent loot/bosses as well. And level lock then too so 220's won't ruin them. That way ppl could level without pockets and maybe even have some fun while doing so. Once you're at 120 ish you'll want to start making custom implants and armour too maybe. And if you can get ppl into that bit of the game, you've got them hooked because that's where AO truly excels! You can add quests and stuff too ofc. But having dungeons is an easy way to give ppl something to do and somewhere to meet up. Who doesn't remember the disappointment when it turned out there was no really good place to go after TOTW?

[Phatkeep]

Someone said something along the lines of "I don't care" about towers or pvp. And that's fine. But maybe you care if a fairly large chunk of an already small playerbase disappears? At least many "pvmers" I know do. Because, you know, pvpers pvm too. So.. there is less ppl for you to team/raid with now. And unless there is some sort of miracle, you've only seen half of it. No tower and very little other pvp means that omnis will quit out of boredome too. Maybe you don't like the pvp aspect of the game, but it's a big part of the story and having factions battle it out is something that keeps ppl active. The game needs it even if you refuse to parttake in it.

[meeep]

All pvmers should now by now only pvpers are allowed their whining on these forums. Pvpers wanna shutup the pvmers cause FC do actually listen to whats asked, just look at all changes planned, all about pvp changes that ruins for pvmers.. and yes i know this is true, with all the changes to balance pvp is a hit in the face for pvmers most i know plan to quit if all planned changes ever hit love..not that that worries me in the near future.

Guess this post gets deleted as every pvm whine does.

[Xootch]

1. They've stated that the criticism has been noted, and that it will be taken into account along with results from testing. Giving a concrete statement now on the different aspects raised would be superfluous prior to complete testing feedback.
Indeed, as some others have said, the statements of purpose given in the February update were probably a mistake (to give publicly).

2. The policy on multiboxing as far as simultaneous input is that it is allowed. I think they've made that quite clear. (I don't multibox nor even have non-mule alts)

3. They've noted that fixer meeps will now have a significant cooldown, and that the team meep is under review for deletion. I don't really see why they have to comment on the 'story'.

FC's public communications are often less professional than larger games companies but I don't see, in these three particular points, how the way they have acted is out of sync with usual developer statements elsewhere for good MMOs.

1.its not a response to say: we've noted most of you are upset with those.
2.they have not. genele has stated that multilogging for mules is okay, anything beyond that has not been stated. if you read mcknuckles posts, he even believes fc is about to change the policy. all that could be cleared up by a clear: mb is legal and will stay legal. instead, fc employees have posted their private opinion on the matter.
3.because it was a clear policy of fc that griefing is allowed and intended, as long as you actually have the intention to destroy a tower. the meep nerf is the first indication that this long standing policy has now been thrown overboard. that is why.

if you don't get that, fine. but apparently some people are upset with the fc communication, and this is my view why. if you and gun say: ah, we don't need any info. fine, good for you. but i don't agree with that. if i pay for a year in advance, i'd like to know if what i think i'm subscribing to now will not be thrown overboard next week without prior notice. which is what's happening at the moment.

[Vhab]

Please refer to this post from Aug 11th, 2013

As per Customer Service management, multiboxing, as in, a player actively sending inputs to multiple clients at once, is allowed.

Unattended gameplay/botting is still illegal.

[Xootch]

and it will stay that way?

[jorricane]

and it will stay that way?

I think from the amount of threads on MB'ing and the lack of a different response...probably yes.

[Traderjill]

Nvm on that

[Ansehx]

Someone said something along the lines of "I don't care" about towers or pvp. And that's fine. But maybe you care if a fairly large chunk of an already small playerbase disappears? At least many "pvmers" I know do. Because, you know, pvpers pvm too. So.. there is less ppl for you to team/raid with now. And unless there is some sort of miracle, you've only seen half of it. No tower and very little other pvp means that omnis will quit out of boredome too. Maybe you don't like the pvp aspect of the game, but it's a big part of the story and having factions battle it out is something that keeps ppl active. The game needs it even if you refuse to parttake in it.

qft.

[Lheann]

Please refer to this post from Aug 11th, 2013

Not a an attack on you Vhab. Just your quote shows that FC CS is stating something that is at odds with the legal requirements of their software. Let us examine the specifics.

See section 9 of the EULA: "You may not use any third party software to modify the client in order to change Game play or manipulate the client."

Hmmm, or manipulate the client. Notice the or. That means "manipulate the client" stands alone. Let us look at the definition of manipulate

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manipulate

ma·nip·u·late [muh-nip-yuh-leyt]
verb (used with object), ma·nip·u·lat·ed, ma·nip·u·lat·ing.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.

Well Multi-Boxing software comes right out on their web sites and says it "manages" multiple clients of a game. So right there it is meeting definition #1 & #2 of the word. Since MB provides an unfair advantage at tower wars currently it really is meeting definition #1.

So let us get all legal on this. You see in the US which last I checked contains New York which is called out as the jurisdiction of the EULA in the EULA I get on start up every time I start the game, there is case law on EULA's and statements from someone not from a companies' legal department or a duly authorized corporate officer telling someone that they can do something that is against the EULA.

The short story is a sales rep/customer service combo told a company they could use software in a manner that violates the EULA that accompanied the software. They even got it in writing from the sales rep/customer service rep. The company under went a license audit (common for big companies with lots of licenses) and they failed when it was found this software was being used against the EULA and that they had not purchased the additional licenses required. The company took it to court saying that they had been approved for the use and had proof. The court found that the sales rep/customer service rep had no authority to alter the EULA/license and as such found against the company.

The end story is that the court clearly indicated that customer service and sales reps cannot issues anything that overrides a license or EULA. They are not authorized to do so.

We as players agree to the EULA every time we log in. Every time we use 3rd party software that controls the client we are violating the EULA. FC CS, the devs or even a game director can not change the legal requirement. A statement from FC legal signed by a corporate officer duly authorized to sign such statements can override the EULA. However the company is required to as quickly as possible update the EULA for customers in all affected software containing it.

The statement Vhab linked has no such authority. Specially considering it came via the forums. CS Management is not called out by name, no link to a legal notice or corporate statement is provided. It fails the test for being a valid override. MB software is a clear violation of the EULA and if FC wanted to take someone to court over it the court would find for FC. Pretty simple. CS us doing no one any favors here.

There really is no discussion on this. At least in the US it is a violation of the EULA and nothing FC CS or devs say can change that. A player could be a real butt and sue FC in the US for failing to properly enforce the EULA and as a result they have suffered undo stress and ask for monetary award. Yeah I know messed up but it is a viable legal case. Then FC would have no choice but to make a EULA change or truly fix all third party software from being able to interface with the client, monitor and ban for it and generally make our life crappy.

So until the EULA is changed the MB software is illegal to use.

Oh and read the EULA it is actually interesting to know what we are agreeing too by running the game.

[RedWatr]

I'm convinced more and more than devs should not take advice from players.

[Leetlover]

3.because it was a clear policy of fc that griefing is allowed and intended, as long as you actually have the intention to destroy a tower. the meep nerf is the first indication that this long standing policy has now been thrown overboard. that is why.

Say hello to notum peace.

[DigitalBath]

Not a an attack on you Vhab. Just your quote shows that FC CS is stating something that is at odds with the legal requirements of their software. Let us examine the specifics.

See section 9 of the EULA: "You may not use any third party software to modify the client in order to change Game play or manipulate the client."

Hmmm, or manipulate the client. Notice the or. That means "manipulate the client" stands alone. Let us look at the definition of manipulate

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manipulate

ma·nip·u·late [muh-nip-yuh-leyt]
verb (used with object), ma·nip·u·lat·ed, ma·nip·u·lat·ing.
1. to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner
2. to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance
3. to adapt or change (accounts, figures, etc.) to suit one's purpose or advantage.

Well Multi-Boxing software comes right out on their web sites and says it "manages" multiple clients of a game. So right there it is meeting definition #1 & #2 of the word. Since MB provides an unfair advantage at tower wars currently it really is meeting definition #1.

So let us get all legal on this. You see in the US which last I checked contains New York which is called out as the jurisdiction of the EULA in the EULA I get on start up every time I start the game, there is case law on EULA's and statements from someone not from a companies' legal department or a duly authorized corporate officer telling someone that they can do something that is against the EULA.

The short story is a sales rep/customer service combo told a company they could use software in a manner that violates the EULA that accompanied the software. They even got it in writing from the sales rep/customer service rep. The company under went a license audit (common for big companies with lots of licenses) and they failed when it was found this software was being used against the EULA and that they had not purchased the additional licenses required. The company took it to court saying that they had been approved for the use and had proof. The court found that the sales rep/customer service rep had no authority to alter the EULA/license and as such found against the company.

The end story is that the court clearly indicated that customer service and sales reps cannot issues anything that overrides a license or EULA. They are not authorized to do so.

We as players agree to the EULA every time we log in. Every time we use 3rd party software that controls the client we are violating the EULA. FC CS, the devs or even a game director can not change the legal requirement. A statement from FC legal signed by a corporate officer duly authorized to sign such statements can override the EULA. However the company is required to as quickly as possible update the EULA for customers in all affected software containing it.

The statement Vhab linked has no such authority. Specially considering it came via the forums. CS Management is not called out by name, no link to a legal notice or corporate statement is provided. It fails the test for being a valid override. MB software is a clear violation of the EULA and if FC wanted to take someone to court over it the court would find for FC. Pretty simple. CS us doing no one any favors here.

There really is no discussion on this. At least in the US it is a violation of the EULA and nothing FC CS or devs say can change that. A player could be a real butt and sue FC in the US for failing to properly enforce the EULA and as a result they have suffered undo stress and ask for monetary award. Yeah I know messed up but it is a viable legal case. Then FC would have no choice but to make a EULA change or truly fix all third party software from being able to interface with the client, monitor and ban for it and generally make our life crappy.

So until the EULA is changed the MB software is illegal to use.

Oh and read the EULA it is actually interesting to know what we are agreeing too by running the game.

While I generally agree, one could argue that there are many different cases and definitions and their ramifications get difficult to define as "manipulation" past a certain point.
If there's any sort of automated input, you're 100% correct.
If there isn't, you may and may not be correct since there's multi-pc input software that doesn't manipulate the client in any way, shape or form.

Also regular keyboard and mouse drivers and software may "break the EULA" if you read it too literally, hence interpretation of the laws being such a huge thing.

Another example: If I made a wireless keyboard that allowed for two computers to receive input from it with no additional software other than the drivers and I bound some keys to PC1 and others to PC2, would it break the EULA or just be considered an input device like any other? What if I made a custom driver/piece of software that didn't need a specialized keyboard to implement the same function? Would that break the EULA?

(some MB-like software works in a way similar to this.. I use it for other purposes but it could be used for MB'ing just as easily)

Not for me to decide, let the lawyers go at it if they must.. but they likely won't.

DISCLAIMER: I don't fully support either side of the "omg multiboxing/multilogging" war! I support reason and common sense as well as respecting the Game-maker's stance on the subject, which, at the moment, seems to pseudo-silently favor the MB'ing side like most of the industry's major companies do. Anti-MB'ing people tend to attack MB'ers more, often in an incorrect manner as far as the technology limitations and company's policy goes, so I end up replying to them more.

(might include this on every reply regarding MB'ing before the ill-informed "omg stfu mb'er!" flames eat me up someday)

[Vhab]

This is getting really tiresome, so let's be clear about this.

See section 9 of the EULA: "You may not use any third party software to modify the client in order to change Game play or manipulate the client."

You can't nitpick the EULA to suit your personal opinion of what a policy should be.
You're incorrectly assuming multibox software is considered to manipulate the client.

This whole discussion with first "FC never told us what the policy is" and now "EULA forbids multiboxing" is very counter productive.

You have been informed what the policy is and by extension how customer services will handle these cases.

Twisting words, nitpicking or mass-echoing of misinformation does not change a policy.


Finally, I'm sure you're aware (and this also has been commented on in public by FC) that technically chat bots, clicksaver, item assistant, etc are all illegal according to the EULA.
The EULA needs to make broad statements in order for customer services to be able to act on offenders who do use software that is considered unwanted.
Ultimately customer services and their policies decide how to handle these cases.

[Encyros]

It's up to customer services who customer services choose to action in response to EULA violations; this doesn't, in fairness to Lheann and her quoted case, make customer services a competent authority to determine what the EULA proscribes (nor does it make Lheann such).

Perhaps someone bored or litigious will have it decided.

The legalese people aren't absolutely beating a dead horse since there is ample precedent for an agreement that is not enforced to be deemed unenforceable. Though, of course, their dictionary definitions aren't necessarily any more valid either.

Similarly, rights asserted by an EULA might not be preserved at court; people sometimes seem unnecessarily concerned by possibly over-exuberant limitations of liability, or blanket declarations of rights to terminate services with no reason and no refund. All such statements are always with the proviso, as far as the law allows, and there is precedent too for such statements to be overturned.

Bleating about it here isn't helpful though. If someone wants to test it, they are free to try.，*

*probably needless to say, "you will not sue us" clauses are not necessarily binding.