Re: Auto-follow, is it time for a change?
Posted: 18 Jul 2013, 01:07
Maybe it is time to bring it back 

Feel the mana power growing inside you!
https://forums.themanaworld.org/
While I can understand your concerns, I can still see the following troubles in your statement: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
That's dumb.t3st3r wrote:Ban on autofollow = police state
In the point the important thing wasFrost wrote:That's dumb.t3st3r wrote:Ban on autofollow = police state
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.
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".
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>
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".Frost wrote:That's dumb.
I'm just spitballing here, but you could walk them there.t3st3r wrote: Bah, it's even impossible to show noob a new location in convenient ways. That's what I call really dumb issue.
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.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: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?
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.Frost wrote:This rule originated when a few people used to run stacks of bots around places like the graveyard and the terranite cave.
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.GMs didn't have support to use personal judgement when enforcing rules, so anyone who technically "answered when challenged" could do as they wished.
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.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.
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.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.
Yes, I see how that could get complicated.Big Crunch wrote: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.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.
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.Frost wrote:What about "auto-follow is okay as long as it's not involved in 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).If monsters (or players in PvP) aren't getting hurt, then it's not combat.