The Mana World Forums

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 01:07**

Maybe it is time to bring it back

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 01:53**

Big Crunch wrote:That is an accurate assessment, but in a stack of several characters who are using autofollow, it is impossible to differentiate who is attacking and who is not. The application of such a condition would make enforcing impossible, so I'm afraid the best course of action is to disallow the entire autofollow possibility.

That said, GM's are not morons, nor do we just apply the rules without consideration of circumstances. If someone is using autofollow in town we would ask them to stop, followed by a kick from the server if not heeded. We wouldnt immediately jump to banning without considerable provocation.

BC

While I can understand your concerns, I can still see the following troubles in your statement:
1) It does not addresses other kinds of multiboxing. While at least some of them have potential for being unfair and/or making overall gameplay worse.
2) It's not really hard to add client code which would behave in less obvious ways. It would take just a few code lines to client to change blind following to something else. Then what? Are you going to amend rules on every case? Seriously? There is infinite number ot ways to do it in code.
3) Solving GMs problems at players expense IMHO wrong/unpleasant approach. If it would happen in real life, you will be forbidden to own kitchen knives "because bad guys can use their knife to stab neighbors". Don't you think such approach is "policeman-centric" while in real world it rather happens to be (more or less) balanced? That's why policemans usually aren't allowed to create laws directly in most jurisdictions. If it happems, it is known as "police state" and it happens to be a really bad place to live for usual citizens.
4) It's better not to depend on GM's discretion in situations like these. Because it could provoke GMs personal preferences, etc. It's still a formally valid reason to ban player even if it's not used to do anything harmful. That's what I call "bad laws".
5) As you told, "GM's are not morons". So as player I would expect GMs to be able to examine suspicious chars in more or less smart ways and to be able to distinguish automations from players even if automations arent really straightforward and completely dumb. It could be tricky and even maybe require some help from players. But after all it should not be very hard to detect suspicious stack/group and then check their IP hashes, etc. Sure, there could be some false positives (like players from same location, etc). But "GM's are not morons", right? That's where they better to use some discretion IMHO.

As for me I'm still think that it's rather "acting by more than 1 character at a time" have to be prohibited rather than "following". You see, many games allow following and even allow to share targeting data (up to degree where it's server feature), so different players can help each other vs really tough monsters. So it could be used in good ways, which are actually adding more fun or convenience to game process. However even commercial games actively fighting multiboxing and botting as it seriously worsens gameplay.

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 02:34**

t3st3r wrote:Ban on autofollow = police state

That's dumb.

Some advice to everyone: be concise. Organize your thoughts well enough that you can communicate them without a wall of text.

"Omit needless words."
William Strunk Jr.

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 08:28**

Frost wrote:
t3st3r wrote:Ban on autofollow = police state
That's dumb.

Some advice to everyone: be concise. Organize your thoughts well enough that you can communicate them without a wall of text.

"Omit needless words."
William Strunk Jr.

In the point the important thing was

t3st3r wrote:3) Solving GMs problems at players expense IMHO wrong/unpleasant approach. If it would happen in real life, you will be forbidden to own kitchen knives "because bad guys can use their knife to stab neighbors".

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 10:35**

I left this topic alone for a while, even though I felt I had plenty to say about it. But maybe, I should throw in my two cents.

I... dislike the auto-follow ban. Auto-follow is an amusing feature, and this game could use more features like that. Let's face it, the social factor is probably TMW's strongest suit right now, and auto-follow lets players fool around in towns, do silly things and just have fun in general.

Of course, it also helps with botting, multi-boxing and whatnot.

Now, the thing is, most people wouldn't even mention auto-follow if this feature didn't exist in the client. As ManaPlus is the official client for more than one game, some of which allow this feature, people can see the option and they want to use it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ManaPlus already parses some plaintext/xml/whatever files from the server, things like news and the online list and so on.

Why not establish a new file which would store server-specific client settings. If a game fork wants to disable the shop option, they could just update the file and the client would disable that functionality, maybe even hide the settings for it completely.

Of course, if you expand on this, you could make auto-follow work only on certain maps, via the same mechanism.

For example (this could also be JSON or whatever you prefer):

Code: Select all

<xml>
<config>
   <AutoFollowAllow value ="false">
   <AutoFollowAllowExceptions value="true">
   <AutoFollowExceptions>
      <map>001-1</map>
      <map>009-1</map>
      ...
   <AutoFollowExceptions>
   <ShopAllow value="true">
</config>
</xml>

Of course, someone with ill intentions could easily modify the client not to care about such a configuration file. Most people wouldn't, though. Most people are happy with the supplied binary and don't even know how to modify a client.

But this would accomplish several things:

You'd have clearly defined rules on what is allowed and what isn't on a particular server
If a certain rule has exceptions, they'd be clearly defined, as well
Most people wouldn't be able to go around such rules if they're using the default client
This problem wouldn't happen again if ManaPlus implements a new feature that ends up being banned
It would generally improve how various forks of the game co-exist with each other, considering they use the same client

As for those who'd modify their client to circumvent these rules, they are probably breaking the rules already, anyway. And I don't really see that as a problems. That's why we have GMs. In fact, with the implementation of additional clearly defined rules (which should also be provided as a human-readable text), the punishments for breaking the rules could and probably should be even harsher.

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 15:33**

Frost wrote:That's dumb.

It isn't. The point of police state is that it usally solves police problems at expense of citizens convenience and freedoms. While TMW is hardly a police state overall, this particular rule is very well fits police state "spirit". That's what keeps me worried. It's like prohibiting kitchen knives sale "because knives could be used to kill humans".

While I really hate these annoying botstacks, I also can admit that current solution which screws up all players by disabling convenience feature is not anyhow better either. Am I supposed to like it as player? Bah, it's even impossible to show noob a new location in convenient ways. That's what I call really dumb issue.

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 16:16**

Let's take a step back.

I'm sorry that I said anything was "dumb." That's counterproductive.
Likewise, let's leave things like "lazy" and such out of this. And don't involve the NSA or NKVD either. Evil people don't argue about games on Internet forums. GMs are players just like anyone else.

This rule originated when a few people used to run stacks of bots around places like the graveyard and the terranite cave. GMs didn't have support to use personal judgement when enforcing rules, so anyone who technically "answered when challenged" could do as they wished. I don't think anyone suggests we return to that. I also don't think anyone claims that autofollow is inherently cheating.

We're just discussing whether and how we can allow automated following in a way that doesn't provide cover for rule-breakers, and that permits reasonable enforcement of rules by GMs.

MadCamel made an interesting suggestion about "pet-style" autofollow. That is, the follower stays a step behind the leader. This would permit autofollow in places like the yeti caves, and might make it easier to see whether followers are involved in combat.

Thoughts?

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 16:17**

t3st3r wrote: Bah, it's even impossible to show noob a new location in convenient ways. That's what I call really dumb issue.

I'm just spitballing here, but you could walk them there.

BC

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 16:35**

Frost wrote:MadCamel made an interesting suggestion about "pet-style" autofollow. That is, the follower stays a step behind the leader. This would permit autofollow in places like the yeti caves, and might make it easier to see whether followers are involved in combat.

Thoughts?

Requiring everyone involved to stay on their own tiles (as far as possible given the tight areas some maps have) when moving should be doable.

Posted: **18 Jul 2013, 19:02**

Frost wrote: MadCamel made an interesting suggestion about "pet-style" autofollow. That is, the follower stays a step behind the leader. This would permit autofollow in places like the yeti caves, and might make it easier to see whether followers are involved in combat.

Thoughts?

Though I don't think it changes anything in the heart of the problem it would be better than nothing. BUT:

Auto following may reserve some surprise, because the way it shows up depends also on "move to target" setup. If you have "move to target" set to "moves to target in attack range" and autofollow set to default, it will look like "default attack range"/"pet follow"
Pet follow can be used exactly the same way as other modes to stack-follow attack
There is no difference between: [Player B and player C pet follow player A] and [Player B default follows player (with "default attack range) C who pet follows player A]
While running it is hard to see any difference between pet-follow and other modes because of network and software delays. In the best case you see the difference when the leader stops.(add speed skill for extra weird things)

Posted: **19 Jul 2013, 04:18**

Frost wrote:This rule originated when a few people used to run stacks of bots around places like the graveyard and the terranite cave.

Okay, let's forget about "dumb" and "lazy". Btw, I'm very well aware of these botstacks: I was one of first players who detected them and recognized as automations. And I *consider* them unfair/annoying. So it's good they're gone. But it's bad when solution also affects players who did nothing harmful at all.

Btw: I've attempted to find this rule and re-read it. It proven to be really hard to do (from player's standpoint). I was not able to find it as ilnk on TMW web site anywhere. At very most, there is wiki article which redirects to some eAthena code. Really unwelcoming (not all TMW players are programmers). And even this code does not mentions that autofollow is prohibited. Overall, it's weird situation. Or maybe I need some glasses. But usually when I have trouble, this is indication other players could face troubles as well (that's how QA staff works, after all and I happen to be one of these strange people). If I would be newbie, I would never find this rule at all. So, extra chance to meet GM under unpleasant context.

GMs didn't have support to use personal judgement when enforcing rules, so anyone who technically "answered when challenged" could do as they wished.

That's why I think it's better to prohibit simultaneous activity of more than 1 character per player at a time in rules - would cause more troubles to those who abuses automations too much, no matter how exactly they do it. Rewriting rules for each target sharing code revision isn't smart approach at all.

We're just discussing whether and how we can allow automated following in a way that doesn't provide cover for rule-breakers, and that permits reasonable enforcement of rules by GMs.

MadCamel made an interesting suggestion about "pet-style" autofollow. That is, the follower stays a step behind the leader.

Sounds like a plan. Maybe, it's good to ask 4144 to make something like this as default in new ManaPlus versions? However I don't really understand how it could look in rules? "You're allowed to auto-follow only 1 tile behind the leader"? Sounds odd. And what to do with pre-existing clients? Their older versions will float around for a while and their default behavior is to follow step-by-step. Still not happens to be convenient, friendly and safe solution for players. So I can't universally tell some noob "use follow in your context menu on me", for example. But at least, as old clients phase out it could make GMs life easier in this regard. However, I think GMs should be able to see automation patterns on their own (yes, this requires some observation on chars and some skills, I consider it as one of GM duties) + have some tools to check how many chars uses same IP as given char. So I thnk it shoulndn't be prohibited to autofollow at all. But making harder to hide multiboxing activity by tweaking new clients code? Why not? Sounds like a good idea.

Posted: **19 Jul 2013, 05:25**

You seem to be missing the case where the autofollow rule protects against the case where the player is botting with only one character of their own.

I'm not convinced that following a step behind is any less an abuse of the game - it will still place the player in close proximity to the targets, and they will thus still be effective as a botstack.

Posted: **19 Jul 2013, 12:16**

o11c wrote:You seem to be missing the case where the autofollow rule protects against the case where the player is botting with only one character of their own.

I'm not convinced that following a step behind is any less an abuse of the game - it will still place the player in close proximity to the targets, and they will thus still be effective as a botstack.

Particularly if the follower is an archer or mage attacking from range. Granted it would be easy to see, but a warrior with a healer in tow is much less likely to be noticed in a cursory, random check.

BC

Posted: **19 Jul 2013, 14:27**

Big Crunch wrote:
o11c wrote:I'm not convinced that following a step behind is any less an abuse of the game - it will still place the player in close proximity to the targets, and they will thus still be effective as a botstack.
Particularly if the follower is an archer or mage attacking from range. Granted it would be easy to see, but a warrior with a healer in tow is much less likely to be noticed in a cursory, random check.

Yes, I see how that could get complicated.
What about "auto-follow is okay as long as it's not involved in combat?" If monsters (or players in PvP) aren't getting hurt, then it's not combat. If someone in the stack starts stabbing things, you lost your excuse.

Ants running to Cindy: fine
Stack running to the Blue Sage: fine
Conga line: fine
Stack in Candor, fighting yetis, or the graveyard: BAN HAMMER

Posted: **19 Jul 2013, 15:27**

Frost wrote:What about "auto-follow is okay as long as it's not involved in combat?"

Well, you see: you've basically come to what I attempted to tell: it's unwelcome when player uses more than 1 char in battle as it leads to unfair advantages. Autofollow on it's own isn't bad.

If monsters (or players in PvP) aren't getting hurt, then it's not combat.

Nice definition. But does not handles automated multiboxing healers. I think this kind of activity isn't welcome either: automated healer gains XP without doing anything by player (unfair advantage) and makes target harder to die (another unfair advantage). Usually in RPGs it's common convention to consider healing (and other supportive spells) on some combatant as "taking part in combat" as well. Up to degree where games with smarter mobs/bosses, AI usually able to recognize healers (and other supportive casters) as offenters who have to be attacked as well (if situation permits).

The Mana World Forums

Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?

Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?